27th Parliament · 2nd Session
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.
page 1275
– I present the following petition:
The Honourable, the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the Postmaster-General’s Department, Central Administration policy of decentralising the Sydney Dead Letter Office activities into 300 Post Offices in N.S.W. is against sound business principles, is uneconomic, is against the public interest, and should be made the subject of special investigation by the Senates Social Environment Committee and by the Senate’s Finance and Government Operations Standing Committee.
Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to refer the above matter to the two committees of the Senate referred to, and in the meantime will order that:
There will be no transfer of persons, areas of authority or operations from the Dead Letter Office, Sydney.
There will be no introduction of Dead Better Office procedures for opening mail in New South Wales Post Offices until the two committees of the Senate have investigated the matters and reported to the Senate and the Government.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray.
Petition received.
page 1275
– by leave - On behalf of Senator Prowse I move:
– I have spoken with the members of my Party who serve on this Committee. They have no objection to that change. They think that it would be more succinct to have the short name.
– I indicate that I concur with the suggestion.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 1275
Sen.tor PRIMMER - Will the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry guarantee on behalf of the Government that if at any time in the future the marketing situation of dairy products justifies the imposition of a 2-price plan - or any such production control plan - the highly efficient Victorian dairy industry will be allotted a proportionate share of the Australian market equivalent to the relationship which its base period of production bears to the total Australian production for each dairy product in question? For example, if Victoria-
– Order! We do not want an example.
– It is part of the question.
– I will hear you out.
– If Victoria produces 60 per cent of Australia’s total production of butter will it receive 60 per cent of Australia’s consumption as its quota of the home market?
– As the honourable senator knows, at the present time dairy Bills have just been introduced in another place. I think it would be more appropriate if the honourable senator would raise this matter when the Bills come from the other place. However, in the meantime I shall draw his question to the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry. Perhaps the honourable senator would like to question me about this matter when the Bills progress through this place.
– Order! I wish to point out to honourable senators that I deprecate any attempt - I do not think that Senator Primmer acted with any malicious intent - to canvass matters that are on the business sheet of the other place. This treads very delicately on the relationship between the 2 houses.
page 1275
– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs been drawn to the resolution of the Victorian State Executive of the Australian Labor Party supporting and applauding the Communist North Vietnam- ese and their invasion of South Vietnam? Has his attention been drawn also to the recent election advertisements of the ALP in Tasmania which carry the message Teamwork’s the Thing - and Labor’s Got it’? If so, can the Minister confirm that some of those advertisements also have carried a photograph of 2 men in earnest conversation? Is it a fact that those 2 men so pictured are respectively the Secretaries of State of Socialist West Germany and of Communist East Germany? If so, can the Minister confirm that these matters clearly constitute public confirmation of the Australian Labor Party’s belief and pride in the existence of teamwork between the Socialist and Communist Parties?
– It is public knowledge certainly within the knowledge of every member of the Senate - that the Victorian State Executive of the Australian Labor Party recently passed that disgraceful resolution expressing welcome to the advances of the North Vietnamese organised army. It is equally true that the Tasmanian Labor Party has chosen, to illustrate its message of teamwork, 2 German leaders, one from East Germany and one from West Germany, in close consultation. I would think that the selection of that picture is about as mysterious as if they were to depict Hitler and Hess marching together anm in arm. I have no information from the Department of Foreign Affairs as to the message this picture is supposed to convey and nothing occurs to me from my own intuition as to the nature of that message.
page 1276
– My question, also addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, follows on from the question asked by Senator Rae. Is the Minister saying in his answer to Senator Rae that the great detente accomplished by Willi Brandt, the Chancellor of West Germany, which has been applauded by all governments of the world, by which he has established a working relationship between the East and West and which augurs well for peace in the world, is bad for the world? Is he aware that the photograph referred to in fact shows officials dealing with minor matters relating to this new relationship between East and West Germany?
– I am saying nothing whatever to disparage the efforts of Willi Brandt in making arrangements for securing peace with his European neighbours. 1 am saying that the use of such an absurd photograph for the purpose of illustrating teamwork in the Labor Party is about as nonsensical as you can get.
page 1276
– I direct my question to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. Firstly, is it correct that on the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s radio programme ‘PM’ on Tuesday, 18th April, an American by the name of T. D. Allman was interviewed and asked for his comments on the Vietnam war? Secondly, was this man simply described as a visiting American journalist? Thirdly, is this the same T. D. Allman who was arrested by the Government of Laos on 24th February 1970 for unauthorised entry into the base of Long Cheng, which prompted the American Ambassador to state: ‘The American Mission has lost any interest in helping out the Press whatsoever because of what happened this afternoon’? Fourthly, is he the same Mr Allman who has been twice expelled from Cambodia? Fifthly, is Mr Allman’s visit to Australia being sponsored by the so-called Association for International Co-operation and Disarmament? Sixthly, does the ABC propose to give Mr Allamn the royal treatment it normally reserves for all visiting leftists?
-I did not hear the programme referred to by the honourable senator. 1 will have to ask the Australian Broadcasting Commission for more precise details in order to answer the honourable senator’s range of questions.
page 1276
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a statement in today’s Press attributed to Mr George Meaney, who is the President of the American Federation of Labour and
Congress of Industrial Organisations, that he bad become disenchanted with strikes and believed that arbitration should be used to avoid all strikes? As Mr Meaney is president of America’s major union organisation, will the Minister invite him to Australia to educate the Australian trade union movement?
– I have seen a reference to that statement by Mr Meaney. His experience and prestige in the American trade union world entitles his statement to be considered with some real attention. Having regard to the devastating strikes that big industry in America has undergone in recent days and to the terrific damage caused to American workmen - more particularly to the 30 per cent who comprise the lower paid group - it is not surprising to find that his union has constituted a committee in search of an alternative to the deplorable practice of adopting strike action. I think it would be quite appropriate for a person like Mr Meaney to receive an invitation to come to this country. As an illustration of the importance of this matter to Australia I point out that it has been estimated that last year the Australian wage earner lost $46m in strikes. To show that the point of view referred to in Mr Meaney’s statement is in line with intelligent labour thinking overseas, 1 shall quote from a pamphlet that was put out by the Wilson Government only 2 years ago after it had struggled in vain to get an alternative to strikes and had to abandon its efforts. Of course, it was rejected by the electorate in consequence. That Government said:
Again the growing interdependence of modern industry means that the use of the strike weapon in certain circumstances can inflict disproportionate harm on the rest of society.
It went on to say: lt is also true that in certain situations today strikes by groups in key positions can damage the interests of other people so seriously, including the interests of other trade unionists, that they should only be resorted to when all other alternatives have failed.
page 1277
– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, is in several parts. Firstly, is the Government aware that the blue pea industry has in past years meant an inflow of about $400,000 to the north west of Tasmania? Secondly, is the Government aware that New Zealand blue peas are being dumped in Australia and are being allowed to undersell the local produce? Thirdly, is the Government aware that its failure to implement the restricting provisions of the trade agreement with New Zealand is likely to result in the total destruction of the blue pea industry in Tasmania? Fourthly, will the Minister say whether the Government intends to take any action on this matter?
– The Government is fully aware, and I think this chamber is aware, of the importance of the blue pea industry to Tasmania. Representatives from that part of the country have time and again told us strongly about this industry and its importance to that State. The only answer I can give the honourable senator at this stage is that on the pea and bean panel which has been set up by the Commonwealth Government there are representatives of the industry, the processors, and officials from the Department of Primary Industry and the Department of Trade and Industry. I understand that a similar sort of panel operates in New Zealand. There is also a joint panel of the New Zealand-Australian Free Trade Agreement; its members met only recently to look at all the reciprocal trade between these 2 countries, and no doubt the Australian panel drew the attention of the New Zealand panel to this particular matter. Following a question by Senator Lillico last week I have asked the Department of Trade and Industry to give me further information on this industry. As soon as it comes to hand I will let the honourable senator have it.
page 1277
– I direct a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. In view of reports that New South Wales aero clubs are still pressing for a site for a general aviation airport, are negotiations proceeding with the Minister for the Navy to utilise the Schofields naval air strip for this purpose? Can the Minister also provide a definition of the term general aviation airport?
– General aviation airports are ones fundamentally used for light aircraft and charter flying, and in some cases for commuter services, aeromedical purposes and the operation of private aircraft. They tend not to be airports where regular public transport services operate, normally being used for lighter aircraft in the fields I have mentioned. There is a strong content of aero club training at general aviation airports. That is the general aviation picture. We are looking at various alternative sites that could be available for a new general aviation field, but fundamentally it is a training field and private flying field for which we are looking, We have been looking at the prospects at Schofields. I have had some discussions with the Minister for the Navy, but they have not been conclusive and there is still a lot more work to be done. I have told the people at Schofields who run the aero club that this is the case.
page 1278
– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Are reports correct that average wool prices for the 9-month period ended March this year were 6 per cent higher than for the same period last year, and also that prices for March were 32 per cent higher than for March 1971? Is it a fact that the Australian Wool Commission has been profitably disposing of its stocks which were built up as a consequence of its buying operations during the depressed wool market last year. If this is correct, does it not completely confound the criticisms by some members of the Australian Labor Party that the operations of the Australian Wool Commission were not being conducted in the best interest of the Australian wool industry?
– It is correct as the honourable senator says, that for the first 9 months of this wool selling season prices have increased by 6 per cent and for March this year, as compared with March last year, by 32 per cent. However, if 1 were the honourable senator I would not be carried away by this. Although the prices at March this year were 19.4 cents per kilogramme higher than they were at March last year, when one looks at the Government scheme of an average price for the whole clip of 36c perlb or 79.37c per kilogramme and then at the average price for March, which was 80.2c per kilogram, one finds that the average for March was very little higher than the average of 36c per lb on which the Government bases the deficiency payment. It is true that in February the prices of wool averaged nearly 40c per lb, or somewhere about 80.2c a kilogram, but for March they averaged only 36.2c. Despite that, since Easter prices have steadily risen. As to the amount of wool bought in by the Commission, the honourable senator will recall that between July and December last year the market was in a very weak state. At that time the Commission was bidding for about 48 per cent of wool offered, and finally bought in 45 per cent of the wool for which it had bid. As a result, by the end of December the Commission had stocks amounting to 735,000 bales bought in at auction plus 196,000 bales under the price averaging plan scheme, giving the Commission a total of 931,000 bales.
– Mr President, I draw your attention to the fact that the Minister is virtually making a ministerial statement rather than answering a question and I suggest that he should be reminded that question time is a time for questions and not ministerial statements.
– I am aware that the Senate is listening with great interest to what the Minister is saying, as indicated by the silence of honourable senators and some observations that have been made. In those circumstances I have thought it wise to allow the Minister to complete his reply to the question that was asked. I now call on the Minister to proceed.
–
Because of the increased demand in the market, the stockpile held toy the Commismission has been reduced to about 570,000 bales, at the last count. In regard to the last part of the question, I point out that the Government has never held any concern for the functioning of the Australian Wool Commission. Only those people who had very little knowledge of the operations of the wool industry as a whole were critical of it. (Call from the Chair)
– Before I call Senator O’Byrne to ask his question I would like to explain to honourable senators that I prefer to call the Whips of the parties early in question time because they have chamber management problems and they are as much entitled to ask questions as any other honourable senator.
page 1279
– In directing my question to the Minister for Health I draw his attention to a statement made by United States sources that the radiation risk from mobile chest X-ray units is causing growing concern in the United States. The American College of Radiology has joined other health agencies calling for an end to the use of these units. As the campaign against tuberculosis in this country has been so successful because of the use of mobile chest X-ray units, will the Minister have medical scientists carry out an investigation into alternative methods of chest examination, such as skin tests, and furnish a report with the object of minimising radiation risks from that source in this country?
– That is a very interesting question. It is true that the Commonwealth and States Tuberculosis Agreement which was entered into many years ago - it was during the time of the Chifley Government - has been given tremendous impetus through the years by successive governments. As a result the incidence of tuberculosis in Australia has been reduced dramatically. I may say that the State which led the way in the Commonwealth and States Agreement was Tasmania. I thought that I should acknowledge that fact because we have a former Minister for Health in the Tasmanian Government with us in the Senate. Senator O’Byrne’s question referred to the risk of radiation from X-rays. Senator O’Bryne based his question on a comment he had read in an American journal. The issue is not a new one. It has been looked at very critically and it will continue to be looked at very critically by health services throughout the world. However, I will have it freshly referred to my Department for comment and I shall respond to it at an early date.
page 1279
– I ask the Acting Postmaster-General this question: When does the Minister propose to introduce the legislation foreshadowed in his Press statement of 7th April relating to the power of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to regulate television programmes on Sunday mornings? In the meantime, what is his attitude to TV stations which break the law as it stands at present and which show other than - I quote the Minister’s Press statement - ‘the special types of programmes which up to now have been regarded as suitable for Sunday morning television’?
– The legislation will be introduced into the Parliament when the Government has completed its consideration of the matter, which it is doing now. I think the Press statement stated that the Government felt that the legal power to regulate television programmes on Sunday mornings was not as sound as it should be and that it needed adjustment. That is what is being contemplated. In the meantime we asked the people involved to respect as far as they could possibly bring themselves to do so, the general standard requested by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.
page 1279
– My question is addressed to the Minister for Labour and National Service. It follows the one asked by Senator Maunsell. As the Minister has given figures of time lost through disputes, will he now give to the Senate figures of time lost through industrial accidents and the loss of productivity due to unemployment? Is it a fact that the amount of time lost due to unemployment exceeds that lost due to disputes? What does the Government propose to do to correct the situation?
– I regret that I have not, in my papers or in my head, the figures giving the time lost through industrial accidents or unemployment, but I, as a member of the Government, can assure Senator McAuliffe that the Government is concerned at the very great loss caused by industrial accidents. Many efforts were made to induce a sense of industrial safety in undertakings during last year, and some important units of industry have made remarkable progress in improving the situation. As with road safety, the position is not good enough and it must be improved.
page 1280
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI would have thought from the way the question was asked that it had some almost political overtones, if I may be permitted to say so to the honourable senator. The report that comes particularly to mind ds the one dealing with handicapped children. I made a statement in the Senate in relation to this subject, if not last week, then the week before. Obviously the honourable senator who asked the question was not here when I made the statement. 1 am sorry. The fact is that the report has been referred to an inter-departmental committee under my instructions. The chairmanship of that committee rests with the Department of Health. All the relevant departments are considering and examining the recommendations that were made by that Senate Standing Committee. That is the normal procedure with committees. I was once the chairman of a committee which dealt with a subject containing many overtones of Commonwealth-State relations. Because of that, the results in the short term were not and have not been as attractive as we all would have hoped. But in the long run, many of the recommendations of Senate standing committees have been picked up by the States and implemented, so one should not be despondent.
If one ponders, works and labours on a committee and brings forth a report it does not necessarily follow that because instant results are not obtained results will not be obtained in the end. The Senate is a House of review in which honourable senators can devote time to important questions. All over the world, questions that are of concern to governments are not resolved with a click of the ringers. We deal with matters that are of profound consideration in a very broad canvass and we make recommendations to governments. Some of them are adopted; some of them are not adopted. But at least they are all considered. Where I have any influence in. regard to them, they are considered and referred to appropriate departments for consideration.
page 1280
– I would like to continue my series of questions directed to the Minister for Health dealing with safety containers. Yesterday, in reply to my question, he said that the Commonwealth was continuing to examine this matter in the light of it being a very real problem. Today I ask him: Firstly, does not he think that 4 years is a long time for a continuing programme on a very serious problem? Secondly, does not the Department of Health employ a permanent head on a salary of $22,000 a year who should be able to think in 4 years of some solution to to this problem? If he cannot do so may I, without any charge to the Government provide the solution in the form of a question seeing that this is question time? Is there any reason why the problem cannot be solved tomorrow by the Minister for Health by altering the regulation under the National Health Act and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Act to make it compulsory for all tablets to be dispensed in safety containers?
–
I gave an answer to this question yesterday but now, the honourable senator has tended to move away from that question. What the honourable senator asked me yesterday was, in fact, based on something he read from a Department of Health journal. I would like to provide a considered reply to his question.
page 1280
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In view of the present overproduction in most primary industries, how does the Government justify the retention of section 75 (1.) (b) of the Income Tax Act which gives a 100 per cent tax deduction for clearing land of natural growth? Is this a Commonwealth subsidy to destroy natural growth to permit the uneconomical production of primary industries already in over-supply, which again necessitates a
Commonwealth subsidy? Is the original subsidy in the form a tax deduction to be supplemented by a further subsidy so improvishing the nation, depriving it of the natural flora and fauna and at the same time creating higher taxes?
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI think that the question should go on notice. However, I am not certain whether it should be directed to the Treasurer because I think it deals with the broad canvass of production and productivity. In that sense, I would like to have it referred to the Department of Primary Industry. Of course, there is a blatant paradox in the question which suggests that because there is over-production in some primary industries we should not be encouraging production in the normal sense. If that is to be our political philosophy I would say that Australia is doomed because we are a young country and we must develop productivity. We are » primary producing and exporting country. The way to national stagnation would be to accept a suggestion that because some overproduction may occur in some areas, therefore we should down tools and not produce. I could not subscribe to that view.
page 1281
– I ask a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It follows on the question asked by Senator Dame Nancy Buttfield. Will the Leader of the Government take the initiative in discussing with the leaders or the managers, whichever we term them, of this House the desirability of rearranging the Notice Paper, particularly the section headed “General Business’? I direct attention to Orders of the Day 16, Health and Welfare Committee - Report on Mentally and Physically Handicapped Persons; 17, Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse - Select Committee - Report; 33, Off-shore Petroleum Resources - Select Committee - Report; and 39, Health and Welfare Committee - Proposed Reference of Matter. These appear under the General Business heading. Could the order proposed for consideration of these orders of the day under General Business be rearranged so that the Senate would have some chance of debating them before the present session ends? I suggest that it would not be very difficult to obtain agreement at the levels that I have mentioned.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI am grateful for the question. As the honourable senator will recall the Leader of the Opposition has given notice of a motion - it is notice of motion 12 - in which he suggests that a special time should be set aside each sitting week for the consideration of reports of Senate committees. I am conscious, and I am sure that we are all conscious, of the fact that we have the task of cleaning up the business paper and of removing from it some of the extraneous matters which appear. Perhaps the use of the word ‘extraneous’ is unfair. We must establish how we may deal with some of these reports in a more extensive way than we have. In fairness to the Leader of the Opposition, I state that I have discussed this matter with him in recent times. We will put our minds to it. I agree with Senator Willesee, who is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, . that what he proposes would be most desirable and that we should strive to have discussions on some of these Senate reports before we lift at the conclusion of this series of sittings.
page 1281
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise: Is there any truth in the claim that certain oil companies in south-east Queensland are forcing their lessees who conduct service stations to bear portion of the proposed petrol price cut, with the consequence of reducing their profit margin on petrol by approximately 25 per cent? If this is true, is there any action that the Federal Government can take to protect the service station lessees from the oil combines?
– I have no knowledge of this matter, but as an Australian citizen I must say that I have observed the proliferation of service stations and the great competition that exists among service stations to obtain a share of the market. If what the honourable senator suggests is true, it would be worth having a good look at the matter. I shall direct his question to the Minister for Customs and Excise to see whether anything can be done in this sense at all.
page 1282
– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories. Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to articles recently issued by the Public Service Association in Papua New Guinea expressing concern of expatriate public servants regarding their future with the advent of self-government for the Territory? ls it a fact that resignations of public servants are at a scale which could impair our capacity to continue adequately preparing tie indigenes in the necessary numbers to take over government and administrative responsibilities eventually? Will the Government take such action as would ensure to expatriate public servants, first, the maintenance of salary scales and promotion opportunities for those remaining in Papua New Guinea and, secondly, the continuation of superannuation rights to ensure the security of those who remain in Papua New Guinea after self-government is granted?
– Yes, I have read the submission of the Association which actually was placed before the Minister for External Territories on 21st March. But it will be reassuring to the honourable senator to be reminded that the resignation rate of permanent expatriate officers of the New Guinea Service is not unduly high in comparison with the resignation rate of officers of the mainland Public Service. In fact, I am advised that during February and March this year no permanent expatriate officers resigned. However, the situation is being carefully watched. With regard to the third part of the honourable senator’s question, the Government, over the years, has given quite firm assurances regarding the maintenance of existing conditions for these expatriate officers, including not only salaries but also superannuation rights. Promotion, of course, cannot always be guaranteed, but promotion opportunities will continue to exist for these officers. At present the Minister is having a comprehensive review made of the arrangements for the security of these officers, so as to ensure that current trends are being catered for.
page 1282
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. Will the Minister, in the interests of safety, give urgent attention to the flood of electronic equipment coming into this country and take appropriate action to have this equipment thoroughly tested and inspected before use, particularly that equipment which originally was designed for 110-volt operation but has been modified for 240- volt operation?
– I shall direct this question to the Minister for Trade and Industry. If the honourable senator can tell me of any specific cases of equipment which he believes to be unsafe being imported into this country, I will direct those to the Minister at the same time.
page 1282
– I ask the Acting Postmaster-General: Have difficulties been encountered in settling a price for satellite relay of the Munich Olympic Games to Australia? Are negotiations on this matter proceeding? Will the Government assure the Australian people that every avenue will be explored to obtain relay telecasts of these events to Australia? What stage have the present negotiations reached?
– When I inherited this Acting Postmaster-Generalship, one of the very early things in which I was involved was the problem to which the honourable senator refers. There have been difficulties in the negotiations. The price that was being asked for this service was, in the view of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Postmaster-General’s Department, extremely exorbitant. Negotiations have been going on for quite some time. They have now reached a stage about which I am not able to be precise, except to say that it is my understanding that before very long - in a matter of a few days - I will be able to announce that they have been concluded satisfactorily and at quite a satisfactory price, so that the Australian people quite properly will be able to see telecasts of the Olympic Games.
page 1283
– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Because of the unusual nature of today’s notice paper and the possible unusual nature of the notice papers next week, will he give some indication of how he thinks the sittings of the Senate will proceed both today and on Wednesday and Thursday of next week?
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI thank Senator Willesee for asking this question because it affords me the opportunity to get the message through while a good number of honourable senators are in the chamber. Yesterday I outlined a programme which predicated that Estimates Committees A and C would be meeting this afternoon and that on Wednesday and Thursday of next week, after question time and the formal procedures, Estimates Committees would be meeting again. Last night, by mutual consent we dealt at short notice with 3 Bills - the Social Services Bill (No. 2), the Repatriation Bill and the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Bill. Those Bills passed through all stages. This caused a little delay in our timing. For that reason we did not complete our consideration of the Public Service Arbitration Bill. We had a vote on the second reading of the Bill and it is now in the Committee stage. It is my intention that we should complete that Bill today. If we do not complete it by lunch time then I suggest that, if necessary - I think we could do it by mutual arrangement - we continue working and dispose of that Bill this afternoon before we actually go to the Estimates Committees. If we dispose of it we will not go on with the other Bills. We will then move to the Estates Committees as arranged.
Next week is subject, with some reservations, to the work programme, as we all understand. Special or urgent Bills might come from another place. We might have to adjust the programme to meet that situation.
I reiterate quickly: Today as soon as question time is over we will go into the committee stage of the Public Service Arbitration Bill. If we conclude the Bill before lunch time we will go to the Estimates Committees at 2.15. If we have not concluded the Bill by lunch time the Senate will come back at 2.15 into committee on the Bill until we dispose of it and we will then go to the Estimates Committees. Normally on a Thursday night we deal with general business. There is a feeling - this is common to both sides - that having regard to the commitments which we all have over this coming week when we go away from here, we should not proceed with general business tonight. We will adjourn when we conclude Government business which will probably be about 5.15 p.m. or 5.30 p.m. This will enable those who have to catch planes to go far afield to get away. So, under the circumstances, by agreement, we will not deal with general business tonight.
page 1283
– Did the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science see a television news session last week during which a courageous young lady university student lashed out against the disruptive minority of university students who occupied offices at Latrobe University recently? Is he aware that she complained of the difficulties experienced by herself and the majority of her fellows in concentrating on academic studies due to the noisy demonstrations of the persistent militant minority element in that institution? What power has the Minister for Education and Science to require the university government to maintain a peaceful place suitable for study?
– I did not see the programme to which the honourable senator refers but I can well understand that there would be great concern on the part of the purposeful student majority body that it should not be disrupted or disturbed in its pursuit of studies. With regard to the power of the Minister for Education and Science, the Commonwealth Constitution does not give this Parliament direct power in relation to State universities. State parliaments have adopted the traditional attitude of according those institutions academic autonomy. That does not accord them the right of Alsatia, immune from the civil law. The enforcement of civil law on the campus and within the university does not depend upon the invitation of any vice-chancellor. It runs in the university as throughout other sections, of the community. The fact is that this Government has increased its vote for State universities from $28m 10 years ago to $90m this year. The appropriation of State governments is in excess of that amount. Much of the State governments’ appropriations come by way of reimbursement grants from this Parliament. Therefore it is obvious that with the responsibility of that appropriation there must be an insistence that university government is maintained so as to ensure scholarship being attained by those students are purposefully dedicated to acquiring scholarship and not in the interests of the minority who are disrupters.
page 1284
– Following on from a question asked by Senator Gair I now ask: Is the Attorney-General aware that in the petrol war now being waged in Brisbane petrol companies have threatened to refuse supplies to those distributors who do not lower their prices? Is this a breach of the recent Act against resale price maintenance? If so, what action is the Attorney-General prepared to take to prevent this type of intimidation?
– In the absence of the Attorney-General I can answer the question on the oasis that it followed a question asked by Senator Gair addressed to me which I regarded as being one which could be handled by the Department of Customs and Excise or the Department of National Development. The information given by Senator Georges will be added to that given earlier. The Attorney-General, as honourable senators realise, is not present today.
– If I may offer an explanation, Mr President, the Attorney-General today is attending a conference of Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General. That is the reason for his non-appearance.
– -I think that honourable senators should bear that in mind and not address questions to the AttorneyGeneral.
page 1284
– Could the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and
National Service explain the much-used term flow-on’? How is it that an increase in salaries for Victorian public servants becomes the basis for a claim for increased salaries by Commonwealth public servants?
– The term ‘flow on’ is one of those expressions without technical connotation in the industrial field. I heard a distinguished member of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission refer to the idea implicit in this expression as …ism’. That is to say, if one section of the industrial world gets a shilling increase then every other section wants a shilling increase or perhaps more. I ask honourable senators to permit me to use the term ‘shilling’ because it has a better jingle than ‘ten cents’. The line of reasoning by which it is supposed that an increase granted to the Victorian public service by its tribunals provides a basis for an increase for the Commonwealth public service is fairly illogical, but it is a common basis of argument. Of course, I would not pretend that such explanation as I have given could not be improved upon by Senator Cavanagh.
page 1284
– I direct my question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Does the Minister see any resemblance in the current Gethsemane being endured by Qantas Airways Ltd in its struggle with rival international airlines over charter flight rates to the battle that Lufthansa German Airlines had with competitors on the Atlantic run? Are there any lessons to be learnt from the latter confrontation?
– I really do not understand the biblical bit although I appreciate the reference. It is true that in the international flying world 2 things of great consequence have been happening for some time and they have manifested themselves in the last 18 months. There has been substantial over-capacity in practically every international airline. At the same time there has been a general tendency for the traffic to slow down. There has been also the other factor with which we in Australia have been most concerned, and that is to stimulate travel at lower cost levels so that more people can engage in it. Australia is in a more difficult position because it is further away from the great world centres than probably any other country. The European situation is not quite analogous. What is analogous is the struggle for markets by the various countries and the various carriers and Australia’s attempt to do what it can lo hold its share of the market and give its own people the opportunity of cheaper travel than they have previously enjoyed.
page 1285
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Government in the Senate. 1 preface it by reminding him that some weeks ago he stated that he would obtain for me, as a matter of urgency, details of the Commonwealth financial grants which have been made available to the Queensland Government for relief and rebuilding of the cyclone damaged city of Townsville. He also stated that he would obtain details of how such finance was to be allocated. That information has not yet been made available to me. I now ask the Minister whether the reason for the lack of information is the fact that no grant has yet been made by the Commonwealth Government to Queensland.
–
Whenever I am asked a question which relates to the portfolio of another Minister and I say that I will obtain the information my staff refers that question to the relevant department and asks it to make available the information sought by the honourable senator asking the question. That is the normal process. I do not do that physically myself. I have a staff to do those things for me. I will find out what is the situation in relation to the earlier question asked by the honourable senator. In the process I will refresh the minds of those who are handling it and obtain the required information as quickly as possible.
page 1285
– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Has the Minister seen a Press report attributed to the. President of the New South Wales Graziers Association, Mr F. M. MacDiarmid, to the effect that the price averaging plan for the marketing of odd lots of wool had proved to be a failure? Does the Minister agree with Mr MacDiarmid’s views that, because of the failure of the price averaging plan, any legislation to set up an Australian wool authority should be as general and flexible as possible? Could the Minister advise whether the wool authority, when established, will be endowed with the power of acquisition or will be just another paper tiger?
– I saw the article to which the honourable senator has referred. No doubt he will agree with me that Mr MacDiarmid was expressing the views of his organisation. I think the honourable senator will realise, if he has been around in the wool industry, that there is some concern among wool growers as to the operation of the price averaging plan. I think he will also realise that the ad hoc committee which was set up by the Australian Wool Industry Conference made a report of its findings to the Conference and suggested that there should be some alteration. The Minister for Primary Industry is examining this question at the present time. No doubt the Randall Committee will have something to say about the matter. Until such time as that happens, I do not think I should comment any further. However, I will convey the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for Primary Industry.
page 1285
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. In reply to a question asked of him by Senator Jessop the Minister stated that there was an insistence by the Commonwealth Government, in view of the great amount of money it provided to universities, that there shall be proper conduct at the universities to enable students to study. I ask: What steps are being taken by the Commonwealth Government to express this insistence? What steps have been taken by the Commonwealth Government to protest at the damage caused to property at universities, such property having been paid for by the taxpayers of this country?
– It would not be possible for me to particularise the steps that have been taken. We are moving in a somewhat diplomatic and delicate field because it is essential to preserve the academic autonomy that universities have traditionally enjoyed and also to recognise the primacy of responsibility that the State governments have in the field. I thought it was appropriate in answering questions today and yesterday to remind honourable senators of the heavy responsibility the Government carries in the great amount of money that it appropriates to these, institutions. At this stage, so far as I know, there are no further particular steps to which I could point. As to damage to university property, it will be remembered that in one instance where this occurred, some members of the Senate, implied by questions that the Commonwealth, having sought to execute warrants within the university and having been met by efforts on the part of students which involved damage to property, should bear the expense of repairing that property. That, of course, was pooh-poohed by my colleague the Attorney-General. With regard to damage to university property, recovery from anybody who was responsible for that damage could be only at the instance of the university government itself.
page 1286
– My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Yesterday the Minister indicated that he had a reply for me in relation to a question I asked on hospitalisation of aged persons in nursing homes, but because of the time factor we stood it over by mutual agreement. May I have the answer now?
– Senator Poyser asked me a question on Tuesday last in relation to payment of insurance benefits for aged persons in nursing homes, which had been the subject of a statement by the former Prime Minister, and he asked a question along the same lines during the last series of sittings. I promised to respond again to his question. I remind the honourable senator and the Senate that I did in fact make a statement on the background of his queston in the Senate on 5th October last year. Moreover, I wrote to Senator Poyser on this subject matter on 13th March this year, approximately 5 weeks ago. I have nothing to add to the information I gave in that answer to him by letter. I would be perfectly happy to have my answer incorporated in Hansard, and if Senator Poyser wants to respond again, he will be welcome to do so. I ask for leave to have my letter to Senator Poyser incorporated in Hansard.
– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The letter read as follows):
I refer to your question without notice in the Senate on Tuesday, 7th March 1972 in relation to the payment of insurance benefits for nursing home patients.
The Government in the general election of 1969 and the Senate election of 1970 said that it would negotiate with the health insurance funds regarding the payment of increased benefits for nursing home patients who have been regular contributors to health insurance funds.
As I indicated in my statement to the Senate on 5th October 1971, the Government had for some time been examining the extent of Commonwealth financial assistance for all nursing home patients. At that time pending the completion of this review the Government announced, as an interim measure, the increase of $1.50 a day in the Commonwealth nursing home benefit.
I also stated in October 1971 that the problems posed by the assistance to be given to those requiring nursing home care was extraordinarily complex and that the review was continuing with the aim of introducing new long term arrangements as soon as it was practicable to do so.
The Government has made good progress since last October towards the completion of its review and I would expect that it will be finalised in the near future.
page 1286
– Mr President-
– Order! I would like to point out to honourable senators that I keep a running tally of questions and answers. This morning, for some curious reason, we are falling behind in the number of questions asked and the number of answers given. Senators have asked long, complicated questions and Ministers have given verbose answers. There is a bit of blame on both sides. Are you pressing your question, Senator Keeffe? Senator Keeffe - Yes.
page 1286
– My question without notice is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior or, if it does not come within that portfolio, to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Is the Minister aware that many drivers ignore give-way signs at Canberra Airport and that eventually a serious accident might result from such a careless practice? Will the Minister investigate the possibility of replacing the give-way signs with stop signs?
– Yes, yes- a nonverbose answer.
page 1287
(Questions upon notice and the answers thereto are published at the end of the day’s proceedings.)
page 1287
– I present the report of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory on the forty-ninth series of proposed variations to the planned layout of the city of Canberra and its environs.
Ordered that the report be painted.
page 1287
– I present the report of the Standing Committee on Social Environment relating to the Clutha Development Project.
Ordered that the report be printed. Senator LAUCKE - I move: That Mie Senate take note of the paper. This report is a brief and largely formal one and does not flow from a programme of committee activity completed in the normal way. So far as I am aware, this is the first occasion on which a committee has found that the need for an inquiry into the subject of a reference has vanished before the programme relating to that reference, has actually been planned and put into operation. Perhaps it would not be a miss for me to recount briefly what has happened in respect of this reference. It was received on 7th December 1971, 3 days before the Senate rose for the Christmas recess. At the time, the Committee was heavily involved with the initial stages of a major inquiry under another reference and was unable to consider the Clutha reference until its first meeting in 1972. However, the formal announcement that Clutha Development Pty Limited had abandoned the project was made on 8th February, a few days before the Committee’s first meeting in 1972.
Having noted that the project was not to proceed, the Committee sought from the New South Wales Minister for Mines clarification as to whether any residual rights under the State legislation or the agreement between the New South Wales Government and the company would remain with Clutha Development Pty Limited or any associated company. As an assurance on this point has been received the Committee is of the view that an inquiry under the terms of reference is no longer required. Accordingly, the Committee formally reports these circumstances to the Senate in the belief that its responsibilities under this reference should be discharged by this process in the normal way.
Debate (on motion by Senator Mulvihill) adjourned.
page 1287
Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:
That the Senate at its rising adjourn until Wednesday, 26th April at 3 p.m.
page 1287
Ministerial Statement
– Several days ago I undertook to make a ministerial statement on optometrical services in response to a question asked by Senator Guilfoyle. I seek leave of the Senate to incorporate that statement in Hansard.
– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows): On 18th April 1972 in reply to a question from Senator Guilfoyle, concerning the optometrical services and the provisions of the National Health Act, I undertook to provide additional information on this subject. Section 4(4) of the National Health Act specifically precludes the payment of Commonwealth benefit for a professional attendance at which an examination of the patient’s eyes is made in consequence of which spectacle lenses are prescribed. The decision to preclude payment of Commonwealth medical benefit in these circumstances was made to ensure that the medical benefits scheme did not discriminate against professions such as optometry which are allied to the medical profession.
By this exclusion the patient is in the same position regarding medical benefits whether the spectacles are prescribed by an ophthalmologist or by an optometrist.
This problem was considered by the Commonwealth Committee of Inquiry into Health Insurance which acknowledged that special problems arise under the medical benefits scheme because spectacle lenses are prescribed by both ophthalmologists and optometrists. While the Committee considered the relevant provision in the National Health Act to be unsatisfactory in that it penalised patients of ophthalmologists as compared with the patients of other medical practitioners, it was unable to suggest a more satisfactory means of achieving the result sought.
Honourable senators may recall that when the National Health Bill was debated in the Senate in June 1970 several amendments were proposed. One amendment proposed a change to section 4(4) of the National Health Act to remove the restriction against the payment of benefits where an examination of a patient’s eyes by a medical practitioner resulted in the prescription of spectacle lenses. Another amendment proposed that benefits should also be paid for refraction tests carried out by optometrists. This amendment was to ensure that there would be no discrimination against the optometry profession that would arise from the first amendment.
These amendments, amongst others, were debated in the House of Representatives on 10th June 1970. Dr Forbes, then Minister for Health, indicated that the Government was not prepared to accept the 2 amendments. He indicated that, as the Act stood, optometrists were placed on the same footing as ophthalmologists so far as Commonwealth benefits were concerned. I would mention however that in reconstructing the medical benefits scheme in 1970 provision was made for referrals by registered optometrists and opticians to ophthalmologists so that the higher specialist referred benefit rate would be payable to patients when optometrists or opticians referred patients to ophthalmologists but spectacles were not prescribed. This is consistent with the Government’s policy of non-discrimination against the optometrical profession. It has a beneficial effect for both the public and the optometrical profession. These measures which were incor porated in the 1970 amendment to the National Health Act, removed the necessity for patients of optometrists to seek referral to an ophthalmologist through a general practitioner in order to qualify for medical benefits at the higher specialist referred rate. At the same time, it provided recognition of the position of optometrists.
page 1288
In Committee
- (Senator Lawrie) - Order! Is it the wish of the Committee that the Bill be taken as a whole?
– I wish to make a number of preliminary statements and to point out the position in relation to dealing with the Bill in Committee. It is an important Bill. It may take some time to deal with it in Committee because the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) did not reply)-
–
Order! If the Committee will not take the Bill as a whole, I will have to go through it clause by clause.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 (commencement)
– I think clause 2 is an important one in view of what happened during the second reading debate on the Bill. Clause 2 states:
This Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the royal assent.
That is the day when the Government decides that the Governor-General shall give his assent to the Bill. Therefore it is in the Government’s hands as to when the Bill should come into operation. If Parliament decides that the Bill should come into operation I suppose that the earliest date is the best date. In view of the fact that the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) did not give a satisfactory reply when closing the second reading debate, I think we need to consider whether we should accept a clause which permits the Bill to come into operation at all. The Minister justified his failure to reply adequately to the debate by stating that the debate had rambled all over the world. even to Spain. In my contribution to the second reading debate 1 meticulously stuck to the Bill clause by clause. I dealt seriatim with the various clauses and compared them with industrial relations generally. There was no world travel in my speech.
If my allegations are correct the Bil) is more tyrannical and more oppressive than any other Bill in the Australian industrial field. Perhaps my speech was such that it should have been made in the Committee stage, but I made it during the second reading debate for 2 reasons. Firstly, I complained about what was omitted from as much as what was contained in the Bill. I do not know how we deal in the Committee stage with what is omitted from a Bill. Secondly, before anyone elected to a democratic parliament can seek to impose this Bill upon workers he should refute the allegations that were made in my speech. He should refute that the Bill is tyrannical. The Minister evaded the issue by saying that my statement that the Bill was designed purely to incorporate in the arbitration legislation covering the Public Service section of the work force similar provisions to section 28 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act was a complete falsehood.
I am now placed in the invidious position that everything I said during the second reading debate has to be. repeated as we proceed through the Committee stage. The answers have to be given. A situation cannot arise in which the Government treats public servants in the way in which it intends to treat them, namely, as a separate class of workers to whom it will not give the same measure of justice as it gives to workers generally under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Therefore, in view of the Minister’s refusal to reply - we put up proposals so that we would get a reply and this could have obviated the necessity to speak during the Committee stage of the Bill - it is obvious that there has been no attempt to refute the allegations that have been made about the Bill. Am I to understand that the Minister has not seen the report of what I said, that his advisers have not advised him of what I have, said or that what I have said is true?
If what I have said is true, is the Government to permit this section of the community, over which it has full power at the present time to make any order through the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, to become separate from the rest of the community? Is the Government to take to itself such powers that although a judge may act impartially when some serious question arises in a dispute the Government can impose its will upon certain employees for the purpose of creating a dispute whenever it wants to do so?
– I think the honourable senator is straying a little from this clause which relates to the Bill coming into operation on the day on which it receives the royal assent. I ask him to confine his remarks to that aspect.
– I am saying that we should be very careful about giving the Government the right to say when the clause comes into operation. It is noticeable that only 2 members of the Government - the Minister in charge of the Bill and the Whip - are in the chamber at this time. That indicates the. Government’s concern for the welfare of the workers. Before we give the Government the right to say that this Bill can become law tomorrow or next week, replies must be given to the allegations that have been made during the course of the debate so that we will know whether the legislation will be beneficial in governing industrial relations in the Public Service. The majority of honourable senators demonstrated a faith in the Government, but as there was no reply to the debate on the second reading of the Bill perhaps we should now consider whether we should not set a date some time in the future to see whether we want the Bill to come into operation rather than permit the Government to set a date.
– I had hoped that we would have raised this very real problem of the absence of reply by the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson), to the questions raised by various speakers from this side of the chamber. This leaves us in the position that the point taken by Senator Cavanagh seems to be appropriate. If the Bill is to operate, it should operate in a clear manner. The real position is that the unions which represent the officers in the Public Service and, to some extent, ourselves on the Opposition disagree with what the Minister states to be the purpose of the Bill. A number of propositions have to be answered. Most of them were put either in my contribution or in the contributions made by other speakers. It might be useful for those who are to answer them if perhaps at this stage I mention them I do not mind because we can start with clause 3. There are some very substantial differences in the interpretation of the Bill which have been given by the Minister and which have since been analysed by legal people representing the unions.
For the Bill to be effective in operation it ought to be clear. So at this stage, in respect of clause 2, 1 leave my comments on that basis. It is very necessary for the Minister to deal in detail with the questions which will arise. If these questions are put, I want to put it clearly to the Minister and to the Committee that it is not the intention to prolong the debate for that purpose in itself. The clear position is that the Bill ought to be understood by all concerned before it passes through this place. Of course, as is known, the Opposition intends to oppose the Bill at all stages. I will deal with my first objections when the Committee comes to deal with clause 3.
(12.20) - Let us get down to earth on this matter. This Bill was presented in the other place on 23rd March. Today is 20th April. So any suggestion that some new situation has been put upon the Opposition is absolute nonsense. Let us not pull our punches if that is the way the Opposition wants it. Let us be completely factual about this matter. The situation is that the official Opposition in the other place, which is known as the Executive House, made it abundantly clear that it would oppose the Bill at all stages regardless of what was said. Let us not have any nonsense about this. That has been the attitude here. In leading for the Opposition, Senator Bishop said almost in his first sentence that the Opposition would oppose it. The Opposition was not approaching the exercise taking an angle in relation to certain matters. The Opposition intended to oppose the Bill come hell or high water. Honourable members opposite know that that is true. What happened in the other place? In the other place during the Committee stage the shadow Minister for Labour and National Service did not even speak on the Bill. Only one backbencher Opposition speaker spoke during the Committee stage.
– The shadow Minister was overseas.
Very well. He was overseas but nobody in the shadow Ministry spoke. There was only one speaker and he spoke for only 7 minutes. Now the Bill is before the Senate. The Opposition has made great play of the fact that it will deal with the Bill clause by clause, word by word. Whom does it think it is kidding? The fact of the matter is that Senator Cavanagh always puts his mind to these matters and speaks at length. With great respect to him, he said himself that he was speaking in opposition all the time, and he said in advance that the Opposition would oppose the Bill anyway. That is a fact of life. We are dealing with the Bill in the Committee stage now. If we are to have a discussion in Committee at length, let us conduct that discussion with the background that, regardless of what has been said, the Opposition is opposed to it.
I do not want to be difficult about Senator Cavanagh’s reference to clause 2 because I know that he was using the clause as a vehicle to make his point. We all live with that. The honourable senator could do that on the third reading of the Bill if he so wished. Clause 2 deals with the Bill coming into operation from the date that it receives royal assent. As we know, this is a machinery clause. That is what happens with 99.9 per cent of all Bills that go through this place. It is a machinery provision to bring the Bill into effect with the royal assent. I finish on this note in regard to clause 2 with the indulgence of the chair, because I deal with what Senator Bishop has said. The fact of the matter is that I am following the pattern of what happened in the other place. The Opposition has made it clear that it will oppose the Bill. It has given good reasons why it will oppose the Bill. It can oppose the Bill again in this place if it wants to clause by clause. Naturally, I will listen to what honourable senators say and it will be recorded in the Hansard. But the die is cast.
– 1 think something should be said about my use of clause 2 for the purpose of ventilating a protest at the Minister’s action in relation to this question. What the Minister said is correct. Right from the start it was known that the Australian Labor Party would oppose every detail of this Bill. During the course of the debate, particularly in this place - I have not read the report of the whole debate in the other place - speakers brought forward reasons why the Bill should be opposed. I think that the reasons were sufficient for the Senate to reject the Bill. My point is that when reasons have been given why we have made up our minds to oppose every clause of the Bill, they have to be refuted or shown to be not valid reasons.
– Or rejected.
– Or rejected. But no attempt has been made to justify the Government’s action. It hoped to have the Bill passed by repeating a falsehood which the Opposition saw coming in the clauses of the Bill. I do not know whether the fact that clause 2 is rejected or passed is very important. It has been used as the vehicle for the purpose I mentioned. I will say no more in regard to that clause.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 (Interpretation)
– The purpose of clause 3 is to define ‘industrial situation’. The traditional description of ‘industrial dispute’ is not used. The definition is a wider one. Ministers and supporters of the Government have stated that this definition will restrict the application of the provisions of the Bill to Commonwealth employees only, that is, to officers or employees who are employed in the Commonwealth Public Service.
The Opposition has contended that the definition creates a situation, particularly in relation to clause 4 which deals with the industrial situation concerning the Commonwealth Public Service, in which the meaning is widened to include the provision that any dispute which is considered by the Arbitrator to be a dispute which affects the Commonwealth Public Service can be a reason for standing down Commonwealth employees. Tn short, as the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) stated in his second reading speech:
These are strikes, bans or limitations on work engaged in by officers or employees o£ Commonwealth departments or instrumentalities.
What I am putting to the Minister is a request for him to explain to us how he justifies the notion that the interpretation in clause 3 means that the provisions of the Act can be applied only in respect of those situations which occur within the Commonwealth Public Service. If that is so, I direct attention to clause 4 and ask why proposed new section 12b reads:
Sections 12c to 12f, inclusive, of this Act apply in relation to an industrial situation only to the extent, if any, to which officers or employees of the Public Service are concerned in or affected by, or are likely to be concerned in or affected by, that industrial situation or would upon the occurrence of that industrial situation, be likely to be so concerned or affected.
So, an important difference in points of view arises. The Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations, the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations and various unions affiliated with those bodies after consideration of the Bill - and the Minister will know that they had time to consider its provisions - met the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch). They saw the Bill. They believed that its provisions meant that any Minister of the Government could apply to the Arbitrator in relation to a dispute involving employees of an electricity commission or employees working on the waterfront, in the railways or in the private transport industry and that, under the terms of the Bill, Commonwealth public servants could be stood down in those circumstances. The Minister has not answered the question precisely but has used in the second reading speech, as I have mentioned, the words ‘by officers or employees of Commonwealth departments or instrumentalities’.
– I also wish to ask some questions on clause 4 in relation to the interpretation of ‘industrial situations’. My questions follow on the points mentioned by Senator Bishop. I ask: Why has the definition of industrial dispute’ as appears in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act been departed from? I think that point supports what Senator Bishop has said. If the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) had heard my second reading speech he would know that, to my mind, the important difference between this definition and the definition of ‘industrial dispute’ in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is that in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act an industrial dispute must be a dispute relating to an industrial matter.
This is a most important clause because industrial dispute’ under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is defined as an industrial matter strictly limited to a dispute between employer and employee. The definition of ‘industrial situation’ in the Public Service Arbitration Bill goes further than the definition of ‘industrial dispute’ in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. But the definition of ‘industrial situation’ is not related to industrial matters as defined under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Therefore, one is led to the belief that the definition in this Bill can be extended to include a dispute which may affect a public servant but in which that public servant is not involved. It could be any dispute.
Before we adopt the definition of ‘industrial situation’ I think that we need to know why it differs from the definition contained in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Does this Bill give power to the Arbitrator to operate in a situation where an Industrial situation is defined or stipulated at the same time as the Minister controlling the Department in which a dispute occurs or is likely to occur has the right under the existing legislation to hand the dispute over to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? Public servants are employees within the terms of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Therefore is it the position that 2 authorities can decide on different action and on different orders with respect to the one dispute?
In 1920 the right to fix wages and conditions of employment was handed over to the Public Service Arbitrator. By section 11a of the Public Service Arbitration Act Parliament took from organisations of employees in the Public Service the right to approach the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in respect of certain matters. That power which existed under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act has been taken away. The Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has power under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to handle disputes in the Public Service. Why, by this legislation, should we give that power to another body, namely the Public Service Arbitrator, without removing the right to make the approach to the Commission under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act? It must be clear from the words used in both Acts - I have gone to some length to point this out - that there are now 2 bodies which can punish a public servant if he is involved in a dispute. It may well be that the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act compel action to be taken in respect to such a dispute and that 2 orders may be issued - that a double punishment may be meted out to a public servant as a result of the provisions of this Bill.
(12.33) - The Committee is dealing with clause 3. Senator Bishop drew an analagous argument with respect to clause 4, but I wish to deal with the matter on the basis of the provisions of clause 3. As we know, clause 3 amends section 3 of the principal Act which relates to definitions. Clause 3 provides for a new concept of industrial situation’. This was the point, to which reference has been made. Clause 3 means that the definition of ‘determination’ is amended to include an order made by the Arbitrator under the new provisions for dealing with industrial situations.
Industrial situation’ is defined also. An industrial situation is analagous to an industrial dispute as defined in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The definition is couched in very wide terms to cover stoppages of work in general, bans or limitations on particular work or work in a particular area, working to regulations, refusal to work overtime, refusal to carry out particular duties, go slows and refusal to obey directions. It also adds a new sub-section (2.) to section 3. This new sub-section provides that conduct of officers or employees can constitute an industrial situation even though the conduct relates to part only of the duties that officers or employees are required to perform, lt deals, for example, with a refusal by employees who perform all other duties to process telegrams.
The point was made, as I grasped it, that the legislation casts a wide net - I think that that was the inference to be drawn from what was said - and that that ner catches the Public Service unions. In fact, the situation is that no net is put out by the Bill. It merely provides the means cif getting strikes and other forms of direct action before the Public Service Arbitrator. The Arbitrator has to hear the parties to those industrial situations. He does not have an unlimited discretion. He is given the responsibility of calling the parties before him and of trying to reach a settlement. Notwithstanding the firm references made to me by both honourable senators, 1 point out that in attempting to have the second reading debate disposed of before 1 1 o’clock last night I quoted some figures in relation to settlements that have been made and, if necessary, will quote those figures again in the Committee stage.
The Arbitrator is given power to (eli unions not to engage in industrial action. He is given power to deal with the issues in dispute. He is given power to deal with other applications that may be made to him. As I pointed out in the second reading speech, management might ask the Arbitrator to order the standing down of employees who cannot be gainfully employed because of a strike or the standing down of employees who refuse to do all their duties. The point I want to make is that equally the unions can ask that their claims be dealt with and resolved, lt is not a one way ride, as has been implied. What remedy is used by the Arbitrator or what course he takes is up to him to decide. I return to the point that has been made, namely, that the Opposition opposes these things; it does not accept them. Quite frankly, when we get to the moment of truth, when the Government says that it believes that they are right and the Opposition says that it does not accept them, I believe that we should decide the issue by ascertaining the will of the Senate.
– This does not involve simply a question of either supporting or opposing. That is known. If the Opposition puts forward some logical reason why the Parliament should reject this proposed new sec- tion, before the Minister can ask that it be accepted the reasons we have put forward should be discounted and the reasons why the Government accepts it should be fully given. I do not know whether the Minister thinks that we cannot read; but he read to us what the Act states. On no occasion did he attempt to answer the questions that I raised on this matter. I ask the Minister, firstly: Is there still a right under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to take a dispute to a conciliation commissioner when a dispute occurs in the Public Service? This is a right which public servants always have had. If we are not taking it away from them, let the Minister justify why these 2 authorities can deal with the one dispute. I have received no reply from him on that point.
My second question is this: Why is the definition of ‘industrial situation’ as it appears in the Bill contrary to the definition found in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act? The Bill, unlike the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, does not refer to industrial matters. The term ‘industrial matters’, under the Act, is confined to disputes between employers and employees. Do I take the Minister’s refusal to answer these questions to mean that this clause can cover any dispute where the Public Service may be affected? As Senator Bishop said, it could apply to the Electricity Trust or anything else. I ask the Minister to give an answer to that question. If there is an answer, it may be that we are wrong in opposing this proposed new section, but up to now the Government has not been able to give an answer. It has a situation in which an investigation can be carried out by a conciliation commissioner in relation to any dispute related to employer-employee relations that occurs in Australia. The Government will now have a situation in which it can stand down men under this proposed new section and also impose a penalty under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. But the Government would not permit even a common criminal to suffer 2 prosecutions and 2 convictions for the one offence.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Health) (12.39) - The view of my advisers is that the Public Service Arbitration Act is the only means by which industrial disputes in the Public Service can be dealt with, and the Conciliation and Arbitration Act does not apply because of the existence of a special Act dealing with public servants. However, there is nothing in the existing Public Service Arbitration Act which enables the Arbitrator to exercise the power of settlement of disputes which a conciliation commissioner has in relation to disputes outside the Public Service. The purpose of this Bill is to give such power to the Arbitrator.
– I ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that sections 28 and 29 of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act have been used either by the Public Service unions or by the Public Service Board in relation to disputes which occurred in the Commonwealth Public Service. I know of at least 4 such cases. So the question that we are trying to clarify is whether already the Commonwealth Government, the Minister in charge of a department, the Commonwealth Public Service and the Arbitrator have access to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and whether at times they have used it. I would like the Minister to clarify that point for us for a start.
If that is the position, why is it necessary to insert in the Public Service Arbitration Act what the Minister states to be something like the sections in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act when, as I have stated and as I think Senator Cavanagh stated, the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations has said: ‘It might have been appropriate for these 2 sections to be put into the Bill’? There are wider issues related to these 2 sections to which I have not adverted as yet. For example, although proposed new section 12e is supposed to represent section 29 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, it is entirely different from that section. That section points out very clearly that the people called into conference are those persons who have the greatest authority. The proposition contained in this Bill is that any person can be called into conference. It may be a breakaway group from the union; it may be a fragment of the Public Service, and so on. There are some other wider issues to which I will refer later. 1 return to the proposition that I put to the Minister, and I ask him again to clarify the position. The clause which contains the definition of ‘industrial situation’ surely must be the basic interpretation clause. But none of its sub-clauses refers to these socalled unauthorised actions and unusual actions in a particular manner as matters which must arise only within the confines of the Commonwealth Public Service. As I have pointed out also, the Bill goes on to prescribe special clauses which establish that wider net to which we have referred. The Minister has not given an answer on that point either.
There is also a related question which is very pertinent to this matter. Does the interpretation of the Bill encompass this situation: Within the Public Service at the present time there are many matters which cause concern to the staff. For example, they are complaining about unhygienic, old-fashioned accommodation. In many cases the unions have gone to the department concerned and said: ‘This room is no good. We will not allow our members to work in it. There is no air-conditioning or no proper ventilation. The light is poor’. I would like the Minister to tell me whether, in circumstances where there is a disagreement between the employees and the local management, under the prescription which is now in the Bill those people or some other people can be stood down. But my essential point is whether it is clear in the Minister’s mind or in the minds of his advisers that this proposed new section forms the basis for dealing with upsets within the Commonwealth Public Service as such. Will he consider also the question I put to him in relation to sections 28 and 29 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act; that is, why, as they were availed of, they were not considered to be appropriate to be inserted in this Bill?
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Health) (12.44) - Perhaps I could clear up this matter before the suspension of the sitting. The sections of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to which Senator Bishop referred have been dealt with, as I understand it. But, in fact, they have not been availed of because no determination has been made under them. That is the situation as I understand it.
– They have been used but the action has not been followed through. Is that it?
– They have been stated to have been used by the unions. As a matter of fact, no determination has been made under them.
– This is a different position, is it not?
The honourable senator is asking me for the facts and I am giving them to him. They have not been used and no determination has been made on that basis at all.
– lt it a fact that applications have been made under sections 28 and 29?
As 1 understand the position, applications were made under sections 28 and 29, but in fact no decision was reached because it was never accepted that those sections could be used validly. The applications never proceeded to finality.
Sitting suspended front 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.
– Before the suspension of the sitting for lunch both Senator Bishop and Senator Cavanagh adverted to sections 28 and 29 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The question was posed as to why the Public Service Arbitration Bill gave power to the Arbitrator to deal with matters which sections 28 and 29 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act entrusted to a conciliation commissioner. 1 set out to explain that the view of the Government’s legal advisers was that the Public Service Arbitration Act is a special Act dealing with conditions of employment in the Public Service and that it excludes the operation of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in the same field. Therefore the powers conferred by sections 28 and 29 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act are not applicable to the Public Service. Moreover, even if this view is wrong and a conciliation commissioner purported to exercise power under these sections and to conciliate in an industrial dispute in the Public Service he would not make any follow-up orders. For example, he could not vary a determination made under the Public Service Arbitration Act. Therefore he would be powerless to settle a dispute by altering terms and conditions of employment.
I was also asked - I think by Senator Cavanagh - where it was provided in the Bill that the Arbitrator’s powers in relation to industrial situations were restricted to dealing with industrial situations involving the Public Service. The answer is to be found in the proposed new section 12b. As I understand the effect of this new section, the powers conferred by proposed new sections 12c to 12e relate only to industrial situations where those situations involve the Public Service. I hope that the information which I have given in reply to the points raised will be helpful. I feel bound to say that we are dealing only with clause 3 at the moment.
– The point the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) has just made is very helpful because it shows that he knows very little about the Public Service Arbitration Bill and that he is wrongly advised. I do not think it is fitting for the Minister to try to force a Bill through this House on wrong information and on deceit.
– T object to that remark.
– 1 rise to order. I ask for the withdrawal of that remark, lt is most offensive.
– Senator Cavanagh, I request that you withdraw the remark.
– Yes. I shall go on to prove it to some extent.
- Senator Cavanagh, do you withdraw?
– Yes, unreservedly. The Minister has just said that there is some doubt whether the conciliation commissioner has a certain power. Before lunch he advised us that his advisers had told him that a conciliation commissioner did not have that power. Senator Bishop said that to his knowledge 5 cases had gone to a conciliation commissioner. Of course the Minister came back with the answer that the cases were not resolved. But the fact that the cases went before a commissioner on an application of one of the organisations suggests that the commissioner had the necessary power. Whether the conciliation commissioner has this power is not a matter of opinion for myself, the Minister or his advisers. It depends on the wording of the Act. I ask the Minister to reply to (his: Under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act an industrial dispute means:
It includes:
That is the definition of industrial dispute contained in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The Minister has the effrontery to come here and say that it does not apply. Public servants are covered in that definition. Section 28 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act states: (I.) Subject to this Act, if it appears to a Commissioner that an industrial dispute has occurred or is likely to occur, he shall, whether he has been notified under this section or not, immediately ascertain the parties to the industrial dispute and the matters which form the subject . . .
He shall call a conference. The Act definitely states that where there is a dispute involving employees of the Commonwealth it is an industrial dispute. We make it mandatory on the commissioner, if he has knowledge of the dispute, to call the parties together. This power is conferred under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. In relation to salaries we took the power out of the commissioner’s hands. This was carried out by a provision in the Act. But this time we are making no such provision so the Commission has power. One becomes upset when there is an attempt to force through a Bill on statements which are not correct. -The Minister has said that if a commissioner has the power referred to he has no power to make an order. Let us look at section 41a of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to see whether this is correct. I referred to this situation in my speech on the second reading of the Bill. If anyone had studied that speech they would have had the answers today. Section 41a of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act states: (1.) In relation to an industrial dispute, being a dispute referred to in paragraph (d) of the definition of ‘industrial dispute’-
Paragraph (d) relates to the Public Service - in sub-section (1.) of section 4 of this Act or a claim, application or matter referred to in paragraph (e) of that definition, the Commission may where it thinks it proper to do so, make an award . . .
The Minister has just told us that a commissioner has no power. In the Act it states:
Salaries relate to the Public Service - wages, rates of pay or terms or conditions . . .
There is the very provision. The Minister said that the commissioner cannot vary the award but in the Act it states: . . make an award that, in the opinion of the Commission, is not, or may not be, in accord with a law of the Commonwealth relating to salaries, wages, rates of pay or terms or conditions of service or employment of employees in the Public Service as denned by section 3 of the Public Service Arbitration Act . . .
So in the event of a dispute the Commissioner can make an award which need not even comply with the law of the Commonwealth. This is the point I raise. Section 41a of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act continues: . . not being -
Then it goes on to say that this must lie before the House of Parliament and Parliament, if it objects to the award of the Commissioner contrary to the law of the land has the right to reject it and throw it out. There is a responsibility on Parliament. The position is that the conciliation commissioner has a statutory duty to call the parties together when there is a dispute in the Public Service. He has the power to hear the dispute. He has the power to make an award relating to salaries, wages and conditions of employment. It is in the Act. Today we are being told blatantly that the commissioner has no power under this Act. I ask the Minister to explain this situation away. I ask him to explain how section 41a of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act does not mean what it states. But we have this provision in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act: While there will still remain power to enforce a decision to make an order under that Act, it is necessary to get a certificate from a presidential commissioner before a man can be penalised. There is the other limitation that only the parties involved in the dispute are called in. The dispute must relate to industrial matters - that is, the employeremployee relationship.
That is not severe enough to establish the tyranny, that someone desires to impose over Public Service employees. There has to be an Act that will go beyond the operation of the public service employees, an Act providing more powers, an Act which is not concerned so much with settling a dispute. The operation of this Bill is directed more to creating a dispute than settling a dispute. We are dealing with 2 pieces of legislation, both of which contain provisions providing for compulsion to report. By the definition of ‘industrial matters’ in this Bill and the definition of industrial disputes’ in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, there are 2 offences and 2 orders which may be binding upon Public Service employees. The Government is creating a situation which no decent employee could tolerate.
The Minister did not reply to the questions I raised. In this Bill there is an interpretation of industrial situations which, we are told, is the same as that in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, but under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act alt industrial disputes relate to industrial matters, and that keeps a tight rein on the relationships between employer and employee. Why has the Government left out of this Bill a reference to industrial matters as Interpreted under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act? There is only one answer to that question; the reason is that it wants to gel away from the question of employer-employee relationships.
As 1 said in my second reading speech, I can visualise a situation where the. wharf labourers refuse to load mail on ships. That would constitute a dispute between the wharf labourers and the Stevedoring Industry Authority or the stevedore employers. Under this Bill Post Office employees, public servants, could be directed to scab on their mates at the waterfront. That is the whole purpose, of this Bill. If the Post Office employees did not do as directed they could be stood down from their employment. At least let us be honest about this question. Do not let us pass this legislation on the basis of false statements. What the Minister just told us about the commissioner having no power is disproved by a reading of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. 1 ask the Minister for an expression of opinion about these things. What does the term ‘Commonwealth employees’ mean under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act? What is a dispute involving Commonwealth employees? What is the meaning of section 28 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act under which the commissioner has to call parties together? What does section 41 of thai Act mean when it mentions Public Service employees and settlement of a dispute, if there is no power to settle the dispute? Under the terms of: this Bill there is no intention or desire to settle disputes. On the contrary, the purpose of this Bill is to create disputes for political purposes.
– I refer to the proposition which we of the Opposition advanced before lunch but which has not been answered. Surely the Government is obliged to tell the Parliament what it intends in regard to this legislation. What we want to know is whether clause 3 of the Bill, which relates to the definition of industrial matters, encompasses or relates to proposed new section 12d. For example, where the Bill refers to the Public Service being ‘concerned in or affected by’ an industrial situation, does this definition encompass the intention of the Government that in respect of a dispute which occurs outside the Commonwealth Public Service that warrants any action, the Public Service Arbitrator or the Deputy Arbitrator could order a stand-down of Commonwealth employees? The second reading speech of the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) indicates that this affects only officers or employees of Commonwealth departments or instrumentalities. That is the first thing which has not yet been answered.
Let me make the position clearer. In legal cases lawyers often say: ‘It is not even what the legislature intended’. That is what we should ascertain now. What does the Government intend by introducing this legislation? If we understand that then at least the parties to disputes, the Commonwealth Parliament, the Public Service and the unions, will know exactly what was intended. But even in that regard the lawyers say that this does not cover the position because the courts must act in accordance with what the law prescribes.
It seems to me that the first thing we have to find out is what is intended by the Government. The Government’s intentions are not clear. The Minister said in his second reading speech that it is intended only to cover officers and employees within the Commonwealth Public Service. The unions say, however - and after all they are specialists in this legislation - that from their inquiries and investigations this legislation could cover a situation involving a dispute among people outside the Commonwealth Public Service. That dispute having been created there can be circumstances in which the Arbitrator can stand workers down. In order to carry this matter a bit further and to make sure that we get proper answers to our questions I want to quote from the March 1972 issue of the ACOA’. This statement appears at page 10:
The impression given in the Minister’s Second Reading Speech that only strikes and bans on areas of Commonwealth employment can constitute an industrial situation is not borne out by a careful reading of the definition.
Any strike or ban on work outside of the area of Commonwealth employment can constitute an industrial situation’ and could lead to the stand down of officers and employees of the Commonwealth.
A power strike or other industrial action originating outside of Commonwealth employment that resulted in a closedown of plant and equipment or limited the flow of work could result in all officers and employees being stood down without pay. The scope of the Bill is such that innocent victims of industrial action generated from within or outside of Commonwealth employment may be penalised.
The wide net is the general feature of the complaint by the unions to which we refer, ls it a wide net? ls it intended that it should be a wide net? We are still waiting for the Minister and his advisers to tell us about this.
The other distinctive characteristic of this Bill is the fact that there is an importation of sections 28 and 29 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act although this Bill and that Act are different in respect of the matters referred to in those sections.
The Minister said that proposed new section J 2k is similar to the provisions of section 29 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. But when we read those words it becomes very evident that there are these distinctions: Firstly, under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act the commissioner, in calling a compulsory conference, is obliged to tell the people with the greatest authority that there is a dispute and then to canvass areas for a solution of the dispute. That is the meaning in simple terms, although not in the languge of the law. But under the proposed new section 12e prescribed by this Government the Arbitrator in fact can advise all parties concerned. The unions want to know whether the Arbitrator is going to advise some malcontent group of unionists. Does the Government propose to discard the concept of organised labour and speaking to their leaders? Can the Arbitrator speak to an odd scab or a group of people who have broken away from the unions? Can the Arbitrator then decide in secret - and this is the real test - to order a return to work and a stand-down of employees? If these propositions are not true then the Minister and his expert advisers can tell us how they interpret the law.
– I have a number of notes here that we shall no doubt take a little time to go through. We are dealing with clause 3. I do not think I aid the processes of information if I read it out. It is before those honourable senators who are still disposed to be here to consider this matter. I have the following comments which bear upon the queries raised by Senator Cavanagh and Senator Bishop. Replying first to Senator Cavanagh, notwithstanding that section 28 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is in general terms, where there is a special Act such as the Public Service Arbitration Act, the one now being dealt with, concerning part of the field of the general Act, the general Act must be read down to exclude the area covered by the special Act.
Senator Bishop’s question goes to proposed section 12b, which is in clause 4 of the Bill. We have some notes on that. Probably it would be better to deal with this - I think Senator Bishop would agree - when we come to clause 4 of the Bill. The Public Service Arbitration Act does not apply to all Commonwealth employees. Where it does not apply, the Conciliation and Arbitration Act applies. Thus, there is a reference in section 41 (a) of that Act to Commonwealth employees to whom that Act applies, for example, certain employees of the Snowy Mountains Authority and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. The Public Service as defined in the Public Service Arbitration Act is outside the operations of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Before the luncheon break senators had produced and read for them notes dealing with comments offered. 1 cannot see that it would aid them or me if I were to read those notes again, although I am prepared to do so if that would help. Do Senator Bishop or Senator Cavanagh want me to do that?
– May 1 interrupt by asking whether the Minister can answer clearly, as Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson failed to do, the question circulated by the unions and ourselves, that in respect to disputes occurring outside the Commonwealth Public Service the Arbitrator can stand down employees or officers of the Commonwealth Service. I should be grateful if the Minister can answer that.
– I am sorry that we lost sight of this exercise. I shall be happy to help where Senator Cavanagh and Senator Bishop do not see clarity, where it is reported to be available. While an answer to Senator Bishop’s query is being put into a form of phrase for his benefit, perhaps 1 could read out an observation which was read before the luncheon break but which could well be read again. The Opposition asked why the Bill gives power to the Arbitrator to deal with the matters that section 28 and section 29 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act entrust to a conciliation commissioner. As explained to the Senate before lunch, the views of the Government’s legal advisers of the existence of the Public Service Arbitration Act as a special Act to deal with conditions of employment in the Public Service excludes the operation of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in the same field. Therefore, powers conferred by section 28 and section 29 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act are not applicable in relation to the Public Service. Moreover, even if this view is wrong and a conciliation commissioner purported to exercise powers under those sections to conciliate in relation to an industrial dispute in the Public Service, he could not make any follow-up orders. For example, he could not vary a determination made under the Public Service Arbitration Act and would therefore be powerless to settle disputes by altering terms and conditions of employment. The Opposition had asked where it is provided in the Bill that the Arbitrator’s powers in relation to industrial situations were restricted to dealing with industrial situations involving the Public Service. The answer is to be found in proposed section 1 2 (b), the effect of which is that the powers conferred by sections 12(c) to 12(e) relate only to industrial situations to the extent that they involve the Public Service.
In furtherance of that one, might I bring out again the general comments on clause 3, which state as follows: Clause 3, the one being dealt with, amends the definition section of the Act, section 3, to provide for the new concept of an industrial situation. It amends the definition of ‘determination’ to include an order made by the Arbitrator under the new provisions for dealing with industrial situations. It defines industrial situations. An industrial situation is analogous to an industrial dispute under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and the definition is couched in very wide terms to cover stoppages of work in general, bans or limitations on particular work or work in a particular area, work to regulations, refusal to work overtime, refusal to carry out particular duties, go-slows, and refusal to obey directions. It adds a new subsection (2.) which provides that the conduct of officers or employees can constitute an industrial situation even though that conduct relates to part only of the duties they are required to perform - for example, refusal to process telegrams by employees who perform all other duties. If a dispute outside the Public Service affects employees in the Service, the Arbitrator can deal with the dispute to that extent only. He can stand down employees only if he is satisfied after hearing the full argument of both sides, that there is no work for them to perform. The same position exists under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in relation to employees covered by that Act.
– I do not know what one does under these circumstances. There is no honesty in this whole proposition. One misstatement is followed by another as a method of trying to correct the previous mis-statement. Having criticised what Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson said, what he said is read to us a second time as a reply to our criticism.
– I must take a personal point of order here. There were 2 things. I let the first go by. I hope the honourable senator would not wish to impute dishonest motives to me. Second, Mr Chairman, you will recall that I asked both honourable senators if they would care to have it read again, or whether they objected. What we had from both was a moment of stony silence. I think Senator Cavanagh’s observation might as well not have been made and, with his usual graciousness, he might undertake to set the record right.
– On no account do I desire to suggest dishonesty in respect to the Minister. If I gave that impression I apologise for it. In fact I hope the Minister is honest enough - and I believe he is - to realise that we are not being told the whole story in this case and therefore there should be some adjournment of this question until such time as we can get complete answers. First, we were told that under section 28 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act a commissioner had no power to deal with the question. If there is power, we are told, there is no power to make an order. The possibility that there is power suggests that there must be some belief that power exists. This was only a question that if commissioners have power, they have power to make an order. I replied by quoting section 41 (a) of the Act, which sets out the power of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in respect of public servants - the power to make an order. Therefore, under the Act conciliation commissioners have power to make an order. We cannot do anything about that at this stage. Now the advisers come back with the statement that when one Act gives to another Act a specific power that is contained in the first Act, the other Act shall apply. Of course, in any interpretation this is not so. It is simply not so. If there is a confusion in Acts we find the words ‘Notwithstanding anything contained in any other Acts of the Parliament or any other section of the Act this shall apply’. By the Public Service Arbitration Act we take out of the field of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act the question of wage fixation for public servants. A special section is put into the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, to the effect that wages and conditions of employment in the Public Service shall be determined by the Arbitrator. We have raised the matter of section 11 a, which provides:
Subject to the next succeeding sub-section, an organisation of employees in the Public Service is not entitled to submit to the Commission a claim relating to conditions of employment of members of the organisation.
I suggest that that is a safeguard to ensure that both Acts do not apply. Although the Government first denied that the Conciliation and Arbitration Act has power in respect of public servants, it has now been demonstrated that a commissioner has a statutory duty to call the parties together and to try to settle a matter by conciliation. He has a responsibility to make an order under section 41a. He has special powers in relation to public servants to make an order for payments exceeding those provided for in awards. He is given powers in respect of disputes. As Senator Bishop has stated, they are not identical powers to those of the Public Service Arbitrator. There is not the proviso that exists in relation to wages, salaries and conditions of employment.
Therefore both authorities have obligations under this Act and no matter what advice the Minister may have, that is the position set out in the wording of the legislation. I have just received a copy of the Acts Interpretation Act which may throw some light on this question. The passing of the measure now before us results in the creation of 2 authorities to deal with one dispute. It imposes mandatory obligations to investigate a dispute and to make orders accordingly. I ask the Minister to try to straighten out this situation and not to repeat false statement, after false statement.
– I wish to follow up what the Minister has said in answering our questions about a stand down. He said that the Arbitrator, after hearing the parties concerned, could then decide whether a dispute inside or outside the Commonwealth Public Service might require a stand down. One advantage has come from our canvassing of these points until now, at a quarter to three, because we have found out from the Minister and his advisers that they agree with us that in some circumstances disputes outside the Commonwealth Public Service can occasion a stand down in the Commonwealth Public Service. That being so, the other point 1 want to take up with the Minister concerns the words ‘after hearing the parties concerned’. I put to the Minister that we are not prolonging this debate simply to cause frustration. This is a very serious piece of legislation. It has been prepared in a hurry in order to catch the members of the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union. However, in doing so it casts a wide net which involves every other Commonwealth officer, and possibly, in some actions, it could involve officers of this Parliament.
The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) has said that the proposed new section 12e(3.) substitutes for section 29 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Tt provides:
A direction under sub-section (1) of this section may be given to any person whose presence at (he conference the Arbitrator or Deputy - Arbitrator thinks is likely to conduce to putting an end to, or preventing th; occurrence of, the industrial situation.
Obviously it differs from section 29 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which refers to directions to the parties with the greatest authority in settling a dispute. I think that departure ought to be noted. There is not complete correspondence between the 2 provisions. I am not criticising the Minister in a personal sense. I merely suggest that what we are talking about now is something which flows from an examination of the legislation which is necessary on behalf of the union members. 1 think it is important to find out whether the unions who represent the workers are in fact right.
I will restate what we have found out up to now: Although before lunch the Government argued that disputes arising outside the Commonwealth Public Service could not be affected by this measure, it is clear now that there is agreement that any dispute outside the Commonwealth Public
Service could occasion a stand down inside the Public Service. In our view that is unjust and legislation should not so provide. My second point is the one I have just raised and I will be interested to find out what the Minister has to say about the related provisions in the 2 pieces of legislation. (Quorum formed)
– Mr Chairman, in our stately progress through this measure we now have some more people witnessing what is going on. For how long that state of affairs will continue is hard to say, but from time to time we will redress the situation as we see fit. Let us understand that. I have listened very carefully to Senator Bishop and Senator Cavanagh who have spent a large part of their lives arguing industrial arbitration matters and the problems that arise from them. Their observations have made fairly clear why we are proceeding at such a rate through this measure. They see tremendous harm and danger, causes for great concern etcetera, in all this legislation. Most other people find it hard to see those dangers, but if you are in a situation in your life in which you just trust nobody and question all the motives of other people involved in this sort of issue, progress is bound to be remarkably slow.
– That is why we have laws, because of that trust.
– I am entitled to make my quiet observations as to what I believe we are engaged in, just as Senator Cavanagh is entitled to make observations which impute motives to people, if I may say so, which they do not have and which are not quite proper. That is not right. We are dealing with a very competent government department which is advising the Government on legislation which has gone through the House of Representatives mid is now being subjected to an examination in the Senate. That is very proper, but from my superficial observations in a rather limited time it has been indicated to me quite clearly that the examination is not quite what it is said to be.
The Public Service Arbitration Act exclusively deals with the Public .Service to which it. applies. Except where that Act or some other Act specifically so provides, the Conciliation and Arbitration Act does not apply. One case, where the Conciliation and Arbitration Act does apply is that mentioned by Senator Cavanagh. It is covered by section 1 1 a of the Public Service Arbitration Act which provides: (1.) Subject to the next succeeding sub-section, an organisation of employees in the Public Service is not entitled to submit to (he Commission a claim relating to conditions of employment of members of the organisation. (2.) An organisation of employee?; in the Public Service may submit such a claim to the Commission -
Other cases are dealt with by other Acts - for example, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act and the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act. I have some comments which may be of assistance to Senator Bishop and to other honourable senators. There is no material difference between Section 29 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the proposed Section 12e of the Public Service Arbitration Act. Each section allows the Commissioner or the Arbitrator to direct any person to be present. Beyond that I cannot help honourable senators at the moment.
– ) remind the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) that I have asked why ‘industrial situation’ is the term included in the Bill when ‘industrial dispute’ is the term used in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The question was asked some time ago. I have not had a reply. I think the Minister is getting into more trouble rather than getting out of trouble. I visualised this happening, and perhaps there should be a slight respite so that the Minister can consult his advisers. I mentioned the time when the Public Service was completely under the jurisdiction of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. in 1920 the power to fix wage rates and conditions of employment was handed over under the Public Service Arbitration Act.
So that there would not be 2 authorities operating, section 11a was inserted in the latter Act. The Minister quoted that section. He quoted sub-section (2.). It must be taken in conjunction with sub-section (1.) which reads:
Subject to the next succeeding sub-section, an organisation of employees in the Public Service is not entitled to submit to the Commission a claim relating to conditions of employment of members of the organisation.
There is a prohibition in respect of conditions of employment. Conditions of employment are defined as meaning salaries, wages, rates of pay or other terms of conditions of service or employment’. An organisation of employees in the Public Service cannot appear before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in relation to salaries, wages, rates of pay or other terms or conditions of service or employment. But nowhere is there a prohibition on reporting an industrial dispute. The Minister quoted section 1 1a (2.). It reads:
An organisation of employees in the Public Service may submit such a claim to the Commission -
Such a claim’ is the claim referred to in sub-section (1.), a claim in respect of salaries, wages, rates of pay or other terms or conditions of service or employment. Section 11a(2.) continues:
There is an exemption provision by which an organisation can submit a claim in respect or rates, but there is nothing to prohibit an organisation reporting an industrial dispute. Under Section 28 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, when an organisation has reported an industrial dispute the Commissioner is compelled to hear the Industrial dispute. Section 41a of that Act provides the machinery by which a dispute can and must be settled. Let us look at what we have been told. We have been told that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has no power. That myth was exploded by reference to the definitions. Then we were told that it has power but that it has not power to make an order. When it was shown that the Commission did have power to make an order we were told that because the provision is contained in one Act the power cannot be operated under the other Act.
I exploded that myth and I condemned that statement. To refute the argument I advanced the Minister relied solely upon section 11a(2.) of the Public Service Arbitration Act. That was the whole basis of his reliance, and the. myth was exploded. The claim under that section relates only to salaries, wages, rates of pay or other terms or conditions of service or employment. We are back where we started. Two authorities are dealing with industrial disputes. Whether that was intended - I think it was - the question which has to be decided is whether it is fair and just that there should be 2 authorities. I suggest that this injustice should not be permitted to remain. If the Government wants a more severe provision it should include in the Public Service Arbitration Act a provision similar to section 11a and prohibit action under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. But I press for information on why the Public Service Arbitration Bill refers to an industrial situation when the Conciliation and Arbitration Act refers to industrial matters, which confines the matters to disputes between employer and employee. I take it that the Minister replied in part to this question. ‘Industrial situation’ goes beyond an industrial dispute. When we deal with the other clauses I will be able to deal more fully with this aspect.
– One question has not yet been answered by the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton). I think it may have been raised when the Minister for Health Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, was present. I spoke about a situation in the Commonwealth Public Service - I am told that this happens fairly frequently - in which officers complain to the department and the union that their place of work is not satisfactory. The lighting is bad. There is no artificial light. There is no ventilation or air conditioning. Prior to the suspension of the sitting I asked the Minister for Health whether, the Minister for Labour and National Service having advised the Arbitrator of an industrial situation, some employees in those circumstances might be stood down. It is not a silly question. It is an important question. The matter arises frequently in outside industry, but it is always settled by negotiation. People do not need recourse to an arbitration law to make them see sense about working conditions. That is the first question.
The Minister for Civil Aviation referred to section 29 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. That states which people shall be invited to a compulsory conference. I remind honourable senators that under that section people have to be ordered to a conference. Under proposed section 12d of the Public Service Arbitration Act, once the Minister has advised the Arbitrator of an industrial situation, the conference can be called forthwith, hurriedly and without the proper investigations which are normally carried out under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Does the Minister consider that the sections are the same? For example, section 29 (2.) of that Act states:
In determining the persons to whom directions are given under the last preceding sub-section, the Commissioner shall take into consideration the persons having the highest degree of authority on behalf of the parties to the industrial dispute, to negotiate for the settlement of the dispute.
The point which the unions make - after all, they deal all the time with departmental heads, Ministers and the Commonwealth Public Service - is that this prescription is different. For example, clause 12e (3.) states:
A direction under sub-section (1.) of this section may be given to any person whose presence at the conference the Arbitrator or Deputy Arbitrator thinks is likely to conduce to putting an end to, or preventing the occurrence of, the industrial situation.
The Minister for Labour and National Service said in the other place that the prescription is the same. Obviously, it is not the same. If the Government wanted to insert the equivalent of section 28 or 29 of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, why did not it use the prescriptions in that Act which I have already read and include them in the same context? Of course, the incidental question which arises is this: The unions say that either they or the Commonwealth Public Service Board have had recourse to sections 28 and 29 over the years in some circumstances. The nearest we can get to that is that although applications were lodged the compulsory conferences were not finalised. Of course, that does not mean that the 2 sections mentioned are not available to be used. Having read the sections, I would like the Minister to tell me whether he thinks they are the same.
– The question is, That the clause stand as printed.
– The Minister has not risen. I think that this Committee and the unions which are involved are entitled to an answer. If the Minister says that he wants consideration to be given to this aspect or something like that, it is a reasonable proposition. This is an important matter which is now the subject of contention between the unions concerned, the Public Service and the Government. I suggest that it ought to be answered. (Quorum formed.)
– I have made several attempts to rise. I gained the impression that Senator Bishop and many others were anxious to see this matter disposed of. I felt like a person caught in a maze with a certain number of people working steadily to find their way out while others were busily constructing new sections of the maze ahead. What I have said has been said more than once. It is obvious that either it is not understood or honourable senators opposite do not want to understand it. The term ‘industrial situation’ is defined in the way specified in the Bill lo cover the specific kinds of industrial trouble that have arisen.
They are referred to and have been referred to before. I will refer to them again. They include stoppages of work in general, bans or limitations on particular work or work in a particular area, work to regulations, refusal to work overtime, refusal to carry out particular duties, go slow strikes, refusals to obey directions. Other Acts have been referred to. They have been referred to before. They include Acts covering the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, the Australian Industries Development Corporation, the Australian Aluminium Production Regulation, the Australian National Airlines Commission, the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission and the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority. I think that Senator Bishop directed himself to a particular additional query, lt might not have been for the first time, but nonetheless I take it. with respect. I have asked my advisers whether they can produce for me and for him something that may help to see us further through this mess. I think that other honourable senators wish to speak. Therefore, I will sit down and let them rise.
– You will excuse me, Mr Temporary Chairman, for persisting with this matter but no answer has been given to the question which I put to the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton). If we do not get an answer while this clause is being considered it will be lost sight of and, as a result, there will be some conflict between the people concerned in regard to what the legislation means. I again put the question to the Minister because he has not replied to it. He stated that in his opinion, and in the opinion of his advisers, clause 12e. of the Public Service Arbitration Bill and section 29 of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act are the same. Even if he now decides that there is a different prescription. it should certainly be interpreted for the record. I have pointed out that clause 12e. (4.) applies to compulsory conferences. It is declared by the Minister for Labour and National Service to be an importation from the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Clause 12e. (3.) states:
A direction under sub-section (1.) of this section may be given to any person whose presence at the conference the Arbitrator or Deputy Arbitrator thinks is likely to conduce to putting an end to. or preventing the occurrence of, the industrial situation.
Section 29 (2.) of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act provides:
In determining the persons to whom directions are given under the last preceding sub-section, the Commissioner shall take into consideration the persons having the highest degree of authority, on behalf of the parties to the industrial dispute, to negotiate for the settlement of the dispute.
This is a very serious matter. It means that what is contained in allegedly similar legislation, the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, has been now imported into the Public Service Arbitration Bill and that for that reason we ought to accept it. In considering the proposition, the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations said: ‘If the Government wants to put in sections why did not it ask us and put them in as they are printed in the legislation?’ We have not received an answer. When we read the 2 different prescriptions the essential differences are these: Under the Public Service Arbitration Bill, if it is passed, the Arbitrator can, in fact, direct notification in relation to compulsory conferences which arise not from an industrial matter. He can direct that to anybody. It might be the secretary of the union or an ordinary member of the union, lt could be a nonunionist. But under section 29 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, a Commissioner is required to send notification to the persons holding the highest degree of authority. This simply means that the Government, the courts and everybody else recognise freedom of industrial relations in Australia. Trade unions, being registered organisations, have authority to act for their members. I ask the Minister to tell us now whether the prescriptions are the same.
– Does the Minister wish to speak before I rise?
– Because obviously we are engaged in a protracted exercise here I am perfectly content to respond to Senator Bishop with the information which is currently available. Then, Senator Cavanagh might like to make his observations. I am quite relaxed about it. The Arbitrator has to hear the parties to these industrial situations. He has not unlimited discretion. He is given the responsibility of calling the parties before him and trying to reach a settlement. He is given power to tell unions not to engage in industrial actions. He is given power to deal with the issues in dispute. He is given power to deal with other applications which may be made before him. So, as the Minister for Labor and National Service (Mr Lynch) pointed out in his second reading speech, management might ask the arbitrator to order the standing down of employees who cannot be gainfully employed because of a strike or to order the standing down of employees who refuse to do their duties. Equally, however, a union could ask that some claim or other be dealt with and be resolved. What remedy is used by the Arbitrator or what course he takes is up to him to decide.
Contrary to what Senator Bishop has said the Bill itself does not provide for the standing down of employees. If that remedy is sought from the Arbitrator, it must be the Arbitrator who decides the matter after hearing the parties, including the union or unions involved.
I have been provided with some additional information which bears a little on the latter part of Senator Bishop’s observations. The language of section 29 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is different from the language of the Public Service Arbitration Bill because of the circumstances. For example, the parties are different and different language therefore is needed. But the substance of the provisions is identical. In cither case, the Commissioner or the Arbitrator can summon any person to appear at a compulsory conference.
– Order! Before calling Senator Cavanagh I remind the Committee that clause 3 and clause 3 only is before the Committee.
– Yes, I intended to have something to say on the question that Senator Bishop raised, but on clause 3 only. I do not think I can take the matter any furl her. I again remind the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) that he has not replied as to why the definition of ‘industrial dispute’ in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is not an ingredient of the Public Service Arbitration Bill for the purpose of defining industrial situation’ in that Bill and confining it to an employer-employee dispute. I can only accept that no intention exists to limit the application of this Bill to an employer-employee dispute. I gather from one remark that it could apply to an outside dispute if that dispute affected employees of the Commonwealth Public Service.
With respect to the latter reply given by the Minister, when I last spoke in this debate I showed how the Department has changed from one clause to another to justify the statement that the provisions of one Act only are available to anyone who wishes to report a dispute. Finally, I tried to show that section 11a(2.) of the Public Service Arbitration Act did not apply. My views have not been condemned or refuted. I take it that it is generally agreed now that anyone who wishes to report a dispute has the right of selecting whether he will do so under one or the other Act.
The workers must be made aware of the fact that they are in a special category and that action may be taken against them under 2 Commonwealth Acts. We have not cleared up whether action could be taken separately under each Act in relation to the one dispute.
I have considered the Acts Interpretation Act. That Act envisages that 2 Acts may operate in respect of the one offence. Section 30 of the Acts Interpretation Act provides: (1.) Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more Acts, or both under an Act and at common law, the offender shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those acts or at common law, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence.
That section envisages that what 1 have suggested does happen. To verify my opinion, 1 asked Senator James McClelland, while he was sitting here, what the position was. He said: There is a selection as to which Act one uses’. 1 point out, first, that the statement that no power existed to do anything in respect of public servants engaged in a dispute was wrong. The same power is available with respect to Commonwealth public servants as is available to any employer in the country. That is the power to refer the dispute to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. That power still exists. But now more severe powers must be introduced in relation to the Commonwealth Public Service. It has taken a long time but now I think that we have it clear that as a result of the powers proposed by this Bill this special section is to be treated more severely than other workers generally are.
– Mr Temporary Chairman, I think that it is most proper that at this time you should put the question on this clause. But, before you do, I make the observation that the advisers in whom, of course, we would all have confidence and who have spent their lives in this field assure me that they have provided satisfactory answers. If these answers are not understood, all I can say is that I rely on the advisers. They are here; Senator Cavanagh relies on Senator James McClelland who is not here.
– I wish to reply to what the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) has said because I do not think that this is the way in which we should deal with the legislation. The Minister is saying that we must rely upon the advice of the people advising him-
– I take a point of order. I said nothing of the kind. I said that I had assurances from them that they had provided the information asked for.
– I want to say something about this matter because the legislation is most important.
– I take a point of order. In view of the importance of the legislation and the exposition that we are getting from Senator Bishop and Senator Cavanagh, I think that some of their colleagues ought to attend. I therefore draw attention to the state of the Committee. (Quorum formed).
– 1 thought it necessary to make some comment on what the Minister said. It seemed to me - and I may be at this stage greatly involved in the legislation - that what the Minister was telling the Senate was that his advisers had said what the purpose of the legislation was and that he was satisfied with their interpretation.
– Excuse me, again may I correct the record? What I said was that the advisers had assured me that they had provided the answers which to them are fully understandable and. they would have thought, ought to be acceptable.
– May I point out the conflict here-
– Order! Senator Bishop, will you address your remarks to clause 3 of the Bill?
– Yes, I will. I am talking about clause 3. I am talking about the basic interpretation upon which the other clauses of the Bill are founded. The interpretation which we canvassed before the sitting was suspended was in respect of whether bans and limitations as provided under section 3 of the Act mean that-
– The great industrialists in the Labor Party!
– You might listen. Senator Sim - Your blokes are not here to listen to you.
– They are here. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMANOrder!
– Before the sitting was suspended, my colleagues and I had asked whether the interpretation of clause 3 which we are discussing now was the basis upon which bans and limitations might be pronounced to effect a stand down of Commonwealth employees. At first, the Minister said, yes, only disputes within the Commonwealth Public Service were encompassed in this interpretation. Later on, the Minister or his advisers decided to widen the interpretation by saying that it was possible for disputes outside the Commonwealth Public Service to affect employees in the Commonwealth Public Service. In defending that sort of prescription the Minister argued that the powers available under the present Conciliation and Arbitration Act were not available to the Public Service Board or to unions representing employees in the Commonwealth Public Service.
In discussing that related question, we found that section 29 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and proposed new section 12e as set out in the Public Service Arbitration Bill are quite different. Yet the Minister rises to tell us that his advisers say that they have explained the position correctly. It is very clear from the explanation of the position that the 2 prescriptions are quite different. As I have pointed out before - this ought to be recognised because the unions will be asked to work with the Commonwealth in the administration of this law - under new section 12e the Arbitrator can instruct or can advise not only a party but also any person concerned. Under section 29 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, the Arbitrator is required to tell the person with the greatest authority. So the situation is that one authority is required to tell the organisation and the other authority can be required now to tell any person in the Commonwealth Public Service. That is the difference. It is no good trying to tell me that an adviser to the Minister thinks that the prescriptions are the same. They are not the same. They are quite different, and this ought to be recognised. Obviously this will not be the end of the matter.
– I rise because I take great exception to the last words of the Minister. We are discussing clause 3 of the Bill. We have sought the meaning of the words Industrial situation’ which have implications right through the Bill. When we indicate that we are not satisfied that the explanations given are sufficient we are told that the advisers to the Minister say that they have made statements which fully explain the meaning of that expression, are fully understandable and should be understood. Who are these advisers to come long and say: ‘We have given the explanation’? The fact is that they are standing over honourable senators. They are saying: ‘We have given you the explanation. If you cannot understand it, we cannot do any more’. Perhaps they could say: ‘We have told you all we can’. If we say that it is not explained sufficiently, the advisers tell us: ‘We have given you the explanation. You simply have to take it’.
We are the ones who have to have things explained to us and to understand the conditions which will operate. If we are dumb and cannot understand, then a greater explanation is justified and these public servants should not run off, saying to us: ‘We have explained it to you and you can simply stew in your juice’. Because this clause has been challenged, the question has arisen whether it applies to section 11a (1.) or iia (2.) of the Public Service Arbitration Act, and the advisers shifted from one sub-section to the other. Finally, they nailed it down to section 11a (2.) of the Public Service Arbitration Act. When that was exploded, they said: ‘It was explained. We can explain it no further’, instead of saying: ‘If you adjourn this matter we will have a look at the question and then come back’. I think that is what reputable public servants would say. But they have said: ‘We have made statements which have explained the position. It is understandable’. They are telling us that they have given an explanation and that we should be able to understand it. I think there should be more tolerance. We do not have public servants here to tell the law-making authority of the Commonwealth what to do. I take exception to what the Minister said.
– I noted the comments made by Senator
Cavanagh. I do not think it is fair of him to impute improper motives to the advisers who are here from the Department of Labour and National Service. I do not think any remarks that were made warrant the kind of comment that Senator Cavanagh made. All that I am trying to point out is that, in the process of this Bill being discussed in Committee, explanations have been asked for, explanations have been given, reasons have been asked for and reasons have been given. When people say. with all the confidence that they can muster, that they are unable to provide more information than they have provided bona fide or genuinely, I think it is proper for me to say to my colleagues: ‘We are at the point where we can add no further information.’
– That is not what you said.
– It is what I intended to say. If I said anything to offend Senator Cavanagh, then I am very sorry. He is in a singular position in that he does not offend anybody on any occasion! He is one of the people who do not contribute to this problem. I want it understood that the advisers who are here are genuine people who have done their best. They have provided the explanations that they understand to be required, and that is what has been put through me to my colleagues. I hope that the explanations will he taken accordingly. There has been no attempt to confuse, no attempt to change, no attempt to obtuscate - only an attempt to help.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 (Industrial situation concerning the Public Service).
– I wish to raise a matter in relation to this clause. Proposed new section 12c, which deals with the action that may be taken in respect of an industrial situation reads in part: (1.) Where-
I ask the Minister: Does the ‘Minister’ referred to in that proposed new section have to be the Minister in charge of the department in which the industrial situa tion occurs or is developing? It is claimed by the Opposition and by the unions that the legislation brings in a completely new aspect in this regard; that is, that it is now possible for a Minister who is not connected with the department in which there is an industrial situation or, as we commonly call it, an industrial dispute, to advise the Public Service Board that in fact there is an industrial situation. It seems that the Minister may be the AttorneyGeneral or the Minister for Air when the Departmentof Shipping and Transport is engaged in a dispute. It is claimed that in so advising the Board the Minister is reflecting Government policy. The former situation was - and the situation ought to be - that the Minister represents the management. He is the officer representing the Department of Shipping and Transport if there is a dispute within the Department of Shipping and Transport and he has some basic identity with the dispute which occurs in that department. I am canvassing this matter only because it arises later in respect of other clauses of the Bill. It is an important part of the Bill which ought to be canvassed now. Does this proposed new section mean that any Minister can advise the Board even though his department is not involved? If this is the case, why is that necessary? Is not the commonsense object of the Bill to allow the Minister concerned with the dispute to applyto the Board in order to have the Board take some action?
– I wish to clear up the points raised by Senator Bishop. I understand that proposed new section 12b is not objectionable in any sense. Senator Bishop directed himself to proposed new section 12c. Clause 4 is quite a long one. Am I to accept the fact that we are to begin with proposed new section 12c?
– That is my first query.
– Section 28 (3.) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is in rather similar terms to this proposed new section. Section 28 (3.) reads:
A Minister who is aware of the existence of an industrial dispute or of an industrial situation which is likely to give rise to an industrial dispute may notify a Commissioner or the Registrar accordingly.
The information I have on proposed new section 12c is as follows: Sub-section (l.) gives power to a Minister, the Public Service Board, a Commonwealth authority or an organisation to notify the Arbitrator in writing of an industrial situation that exists or is likely to occur and to make application to him to use the powers given to him under these new provisions. The application may simply ask the Arbitrator to call a conference to consider the matter or it may ask for some specific remedy. It should be noted that an application for a specific remedy does not have to be made at the same time as the notice of the industrial situation is given but can be made at a subsequent time - for example, during the hearing of the matter.. Proposed new section 12c (2.) provides that once a notice is given to the Arbitrator he shall send a copy of that notice to either parties concerned or affected or parties who are likely to be concerned or affected by the industrial situation. The object of this is to ensure that all parties are aware of the notification and to clear the way for an immediate hearing of the matter. So the reference to a Minister in the Bill is the same as the reference to a Minister in the principal Act.
– There is contained in this legislation provision for a change of designation of the Minister who will advise the Board. The question that concerns me is raised more strongly in regard to proposed new section ISa, but my query is related also to the clause under consideration. Proposed new section 15a makes a different prescription from that which is contained in the Public Service Arbitration Act but which will be replaced by proposed new section 15a. Sub-section (4.) of that prescription provides that an application made ‘under the last preceding sub-section’ may be made by a Minister affected by the claim or application. Proposed new section
I 5a (4.) (b) reads:
In relation to the clause which we are now discussing it seems to me that the same tendency has developed. I ask: Why is it that a Minister who may not necessarily be the Minister whose department is involved in the dispute should be given power to advise the Board of the dispute?
– I suggest that Senator Cavanagh might care to develop any points which he has because it will allow me time to be more explicit for Senator Bishop.
– I want some information. Proposed new section 12b states:
Sections 12c to 12f, inclusive, of this Act apply in relation to. an industrial situation only to the extent, if any, to which officers or employees of the Public Service are concerned in or affected by, or ure likely to be concerned in or affected by, that industrial situation or would, upon the occurrence of that industrial situation, be likely to be so concerned or affected.
In this proposed new section we have 2 alternatives, either ‘concerned in* or affected by’. There is no definition of either term. 1 take it that ‘concerned in’ would mean those actually engaged in the dispute. I do not know whether we can gather any meaning from ‘affected by’. How much does one have to be affected by? If it were a postal dispute I suppose that most people would be affected. The proposed new section refers to a dispute which members of the Public Service are concerned in’ or ‘affected by’. To tuy mind this conveys something which was suggested when we were discussing clause 3 in relation to a dispute outside the Public Service. An illustration was given of waterside workers who would not load mail, thus affecting postal workers. This is a dispute coming under the consideration of the Public Service Arbitrator. Of course honourable senators see the difficulties one gets into. Obviously this dispute would be studied by another authority but it is also a dispute over which the Public Service Arbitrator has authority. A dispute may hamper work affecting anyone in the public service. This situation has great significance because of the definition of industrial situation to which we have just agreed and because of the power of a department to stand down employees who are affected by a dispute which occurs outside the service. In relation to ‘industrial situation’ the Bill states:
Industrial situation’ means -
by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section: (2.) Conduct is capable of constituting an industrial situation for the purposes of this Act notwithstanding that that conduct relates to part only of the duties that officers or employees are required to perform in the course of their employment’.
However because of a dispute outside the Public Service during a small period of an 8-hour spread of work an operation may be affected and this gives the Public Service Arbitrator the power to look at this dispute. Under the definition of industrial situation he is given power to stand down public servants. This occurs if an operation which is performed during the course of a day’s work cannot be carried out because of a dispute. I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) whether I have the correct interpretation. The Minister will see that this clause is severe. I say that it is far more severe than anything contained in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. In relation to proposed new section 12c Senator Bishop raised a question about the word ‘Minister’. I see that provision as applying not even to the Minister of the department involved in the dispute but to any Minister. It need not bc the Minister whose department is concerned in or affected by the dispute. But I believe that the Minister for Civil Aviation has agreed to answer that question. Then we come to the provision relating to those who notify a dispute. Paragraph (b) of proposed new section 12c states: it appears to an officer of an organisation that-
This provision differs from the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in that that Act makes provision for the organisation. Under this proposed new section, the organisation as such has no right to apply. I suppose that while this offers no hardship to an organisation which wants to apply because the secretary or the president will give notification, it opens up the field for the disgruntled officer. He may go against the wishes of his organisation and notify the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission of a possible dispute. It could well be a dispute in which the organisation is not likely to be concerned. Here we are taking power away and trying to create divisions within organisations by permitting an officer of an organisation to come along and report a dispute against the wishes of his organisation. He could be a disgruntled officer of the organisation who had not received his own way at a meeting. He moves contrary to the will of the meeting and reports the dispute. Surely this is part of a scheme to divide the trade union movement on various issues. As I have stated, an officer knows that he has power to report a dispute under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.
I now turn to the question of why this Bill is necessary. Proposed new section 12n states: (1.) Where the Arbitrator has been informed under the last preceding section of the existence or likely occurrence of an industrial situation, the Arbitrator or a Deputy Arbitrator -
Honourable senators will notice from those words that people called to the conference do not have to be concerned in the dispute if my interpretation of ‘concerned in’ is valid. They can simply be affected by the existence of the situation. One could visualise the situation if telephonists and postal workers went on strike. There would be very few departments which would not be affected by such action. This clause permits practically any department of the Commonwealth to be represented at a conference. If the Postmaster-General’s Department were involved, the Treasurer and the Attorney-General could be called into the conference because their departments would be affected. This Bill is unlike the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which restricts attendance at conferences to those concerned in a dispute. 1 think it provides that employer and employee representatives or such other persons as may contribute to a settlement of the dispute may attend. But this Bill provides not only for those who may assist in the settlement of a dispute to attend but also it makes provision for the attendance of any department which may be concerned in a dispute. Proposed new section 12c (2.) states:
Proposed new section 12d (1.) states:
That is the distinction. It is a case of whether the Arbitrator considers the presence of that person desirable rather than whether that person can assist in the settlement of the dispute. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act is aimed at settling disputes. This Bill has been introduced for an entirely different reason. There is no intention under this Bill to settle disputes.
This brings up a most vital and unfair aspect which I mentioned in my second reading speech. I refer to the situation in which the authority must make a decision adversely affecting a department under the control of someone who is responsible for his appointment. The Government makes certain appointments for life. After appointment the appointee has no worries about the term of appointment and therefore can hear disputes impartially and make decisions on the merits without the hand of the employer, the appointing authority, hanging over him. Conciliation and Arbitration Commission judges and commissioners are appointed for life. As I said in my second reading speech, they cao thumb their noses at a Minister. But under this Bill matters have to be decided by an Arbitrator who is appointed for a term of 7 years and then comes up for reappointment. A Minister responsible for his reappointment may be invited to a conference. The Aribrator may have served 61 years and may desire another term of 7 years in order to qualify for superannuation. How can he give a decision against the wishes of the person who will decide on his reappointment? The great influence could be brought to bear, or could appear to be brought to bear, by a Minister on an Arbitrator who is hoping for reappointment. In such circumstances no-one could have confidence in a decision made by that authority. Whether this possibility of influence is real or apparent, that is the position. It would not be tolerated in respect of any other section of workers of the Commonwealth. I do not think it would be tolerated anywhere in the Western world. Yet the Government tells us that the purpose of this Bill is to settle disputes.
If the workers do not rise en masse in industrial disputes against this clause they are not true to the traditions of the Australian working class. All these things point to the fact that there is no intention to give justice under this Bill. There is no intention to settle disputes. This Bill is designed entirely for the purpose of creating disputes in an essential industry whenever the Government desires it for political purposes.
– Senator Bishop directed his remarks pretty well exclusively, I think, to proposed new section 12c, while Senator Cavanagh directed his remarks pretty well over the whole of clause 4 which relates to proposed new sections 12b to 12f, but with particular reference to certain clauses. If the information I have does not give them the information they require it will be necessary for them to ask supplementary questions. The information I have for Senator Bishop is that any Minister is given power to refer a situation to the Arbitrator in order to avoid legal disputation as to whether the Minister is affected by the situation.
I have some information for Senator Cavanagh. It may not be sufficient for him. However, we shall see. I refer firstly to proposed new section 12b. This is contained in clause 4 of the Bill and I do not think I need read the relevant part. I have some explanatory notes which might settle this matter. The provisions in the Public Service Arbitration Act for dealing with industrial situations are restricted in their application to industrial situations which concern or affect, or are likely to concern or affect, officers or employees in Commonwealth employment. The point is made that if a postal worker is going to refuse to obey a direction to go to a wharf to unload mail, there is likely to be a dispute which the union concerned can then refer to the arbitrator. The other point is that a disgruntled officer who refers disputes to the arbitrator without the consent of the union is not likely, one would imagine, to remain an officer for long. In my experience nobody ever wants to bring on industrial disputes in the general area. I have never found people to be madly anxious to close industries and to do without pay and income. These closures seem to be things which come about because of a variety of reasons. I have not found a tremendous number of examples of people bringing on close-downs willy-nilly or voluntarily. There have been a few cases but I do not think it would help to mention them in this debate.
Senator Cavanagh referred to an Arbitrator being likely to order stand-downs if only part of a day’s work was involved and that part of the day’s work was not being performed. As already explained, under the provisions of the Bill there is no requirement for the Arbitrator to issue orders. Such orders should be made only after full discussion with all parties and no doubt after the Arbitrator is satisfied that such an order is necessary. Senator Cavanagh also was concerned about an Arbitrator who may be serving the later part of his term of appointment, with perhaps 6 months to serve. He said that such a person might be inhibited in dealing specifically with cases except in one direction. I do not think that is true historically. The Arbitrator is hearing cases every day and often gives decisions which are against the submissions of the Public Service Board. That is all the information I have at the moment. Honourable senators may care to ask further questions.
– I want to ask some questions about proposed new section 12d which deals with orders relating to industrial situations. Under the terms of that proposed new section, where the Arbitrator has been informed he shall ‘forthwith call a conference’. That conference will not only include the organisations concerned and the Ministers and departmental people but any other person. Very wide power is given in proposed new section 12D(l.)(b) which states that the Arbitrator or Deputy Arbitrator: may, subject to the next succeeding sub-section after hearing such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit, make such orders as he thinks necessary or desirable for putting an end to, or preventing the occurrence of, the situation or preventing the occurrence of further industrial situations or such other orders as he thinks necessary or desirable by, reason of the existence or likely occurrence of the situation.
The Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations and other bodies claim that this is a very wide power, that the ambit is too wide. It allows the Arbitrator to make up his own mind. He does not have to engage in the tests usual in ordinary arbitration practices. He is not required to do what is required under section 30 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act by, for example, a conciliator appointed to settle a dispute. He can act as he thinks fit. The unions contend, and after reading this proposed new section I think they are right, that not only can he do these things without canvassing the propositions but he can then issue an order and also hold discussions in private and in secret. People concerned in the issues could be kept out of the talks because this proposed new section gives the Arbitrator extraordinary power.
A restriction on the powers of the Arbitrator should be spelt out. There should be provisions for procedures relating to hearings. Proper procedures should be spelt out, as is the custom in the ordinary industrial laws outside the Public Service. I would like the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) to tell the Committee whether the complaints of the Opposition and of the unions involved in the Public Service are justified. Can the Arbitrator forthwith, without consulting the unions concerned and without following any form of rules of evidence, decide that a situation requires some action by him and can he then go on to stand down workers? If he can do this, it is a very wide power. It should be reviewed. This probably is one of the most important clauses of the Bill. If the powers are as wide as the unions say, there ought to be some restrictions in the legislation.
– In respect to proposed new section 12d, to which my colleague has referred, as he indicated the Public Service Arbitrator may call parties to a conference. He may or may not hear evidence, and he may make a decision as he sees fit which can amount to the standing down of employees. I seek information from the Minster as to whether inclusion of that new provision in the Act will negate a long-standing provision of the principal Act, namely section 13 to which 1 referred yesterday, which provides in sub-section (1):
In relation lo every claim or application made to him in pursuance of this Act, (he Arbitrator or a Deputy Arbitrator shall act according lo equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities or legal forms, and shall no( be bound by any rules of evidence, but may inform his mind on any matter in such manner as he thinks (its.
We are concerned that paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section I 2d gives much wider powers to the Arbitrator and Deputy Arbitrator and that the Bill fails to provide adequate safeguards. As my colleague said, there is a complementary reference in proposed new section 12e, sub-section (5) which prescribes that conferences shall be held in private except to such extent, if any, as the Arbitrator or a Deputy Arbitrator directs that they are to be held in public. The organisation, quite rightly in my view, has registered alarm at such an extensive power. It believes that one of the protecting influences available to an organisation is a public hearing which can attract public interest, which in turn provides substantial emotional content. Therefore, we do not believe the Arbitrator should be the sole arbiter of whether the conference shall or shall not be held in private. If the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, one of its provisions should not negate the long-standing provision of the principal Act to which I have referred section 13. I’ ask the Minister to inform me on this subject matter.
– The principal Act - the Public Service Arbitration Act 1920-1969 - provides in section 13 (I):
In relation (o every, claim or application made to him in pursuance of this Act, (he Arbitrator or a Deputy Arbitrator shall act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities or legal forms, am) shall not be bound by any rules of evidence, but may inform his mind on any matter in such manner as he thinks fit.
The Arbitrator’s powers set out in proposed new section 12d(I) are exercisable only after he has heard the submissions of all parties. Section 13 is still applicable. As to the question of a public hearing subsection (5) of proposed new section 12e prescribes that the conference shall be held in private except to such extent, if any, as the Arbitrator or Deputy Arbitrator directs that it be held in public. This provision is in line with provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, under which statutory conferences are normally private conferences. The new sub-section to which I have referred gives the right to the Arbitrator or a Deputy Arbitrator to direct that the conference or part of it be held in public if he believes this to be desirable. Those remarks, I think, cover the points raised by Senator Brown.
I believe that the matter referred lo by Senator Bishop would be covered by the general comments. The Public Service Arbitration Act currently does not provide for industrial situations; it provides merely for the lodging of claims by unions or the lodging by managements or unions of applications for variations of determinations. Unlike the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, it does not provide the means of bringing the tribunal into an industrial dispute situation. Thus, the Bill will enable managment or a union to notify the Arbitrator of an industrial situation and to have it resolved. This is an advantage. If a union says that another union will engage in strike action that will affect members of the first union, that union can notify the threatened industrial situation and ask lor the tribunal to be brought into the dispute. It could do so in an attempt to avoid the likely effects on its members of a strike by the second union.
Senator Bishop’s point may be taken as suggesting that the Bill might be discriminatory against public servants. As the Act contains no industrial procedure for the settling of differences, it could be said that as it now stands it is discriminatory against public servants. The discrmination, if it exists, will in effect be done away with.
– The Minister could have been a little clearer in respect of one aspect of his answer. 1 now expect him, in consequence of his passing reference to it, to give me a straight answer. The question is simply this: Under the new provision in proposed section 12d(l.)(b), is the Arbitrator obliged at all times to comply with the provisions of section 13 of the principal Act?
– 1 think once again I can refer only to the principal Act, which seems to me to impose very substantial strictures. I repeat that subsection (1.) of section 13 provides:
In relation to every claim or application made to him in pursuance of this Act, the Arbitrator or a Deputy Arbitrator shall act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities or legal forms, and shall not be bound by any rules of evidence, but may inform his mind on any matter in such manner as he thinks fits.
I am afraid that, as much as I wish to do so, I cannot help Senator Brown any more than that. That is an extremely wide provision which gives great discretion but imposes extreme strictures on the Arbitrator.
– I should like to follow up the matter raised by Senator Brown. It seems to me that the 2 relevant provisions cannot be reconciled. The existing subsection which the Minister read refers to the Arbitrator’s obligation to act according to equity, good conscience and so on. This is the usual industrial prescription in arbitration Acts and in most State industrial legislation. I draw the Minister’s attention to proposed new section 12d, which provides in paragraph (b) of sub-section (1.) that the Arbitrator or a Deputy Arbitrator - may, subject to the next succeeding subsection, after hearing such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit, make such orders as he thinks necessary or desirable for putting an end to, or prevailing the occurrence of, the situation or preventing the occurrence of . . . the situation.
That shows the difference between section 13 of the principal Act and the provision that is now being written into the Act. I suggest that they conflict. We ought to be told the exact intention of the Government in seeking to introduce new sections 12d and 12b. Our criticism has not yet been answered. The unions, having obtained legal information, contend that this sort of discussion in relation to the orders can in fact be heard in secret. It need not be in public. The Minister has said exactly that. He said that, if necessary, the Arbitrator can decide whether the discussions shall be in public. The other glaring injustice lies in subclause (2.) of proposed new section 12d, which sets out the orders that may be made by the Arbitrator. It provides: (2.) The orders that may be made under the last preceding sub-section are -
According to the legal advisers of the unions and according to the way that we read the provision, the Arbitrator or Deputy Arbitrator can issue an order against a union which is not concerned with Commonwealth employment generally. It is an extremely wide power. It seems to me to be an area which should not concern the Commonwealth Public Service at all or the Arbitrator. It should be strictly limited. We agree with the unions that something ought to be done about it and if we are correct in our view there is every reason to delay the legislation, particularly if the advisers are uncertain as to what is meant. The Minister has not answered our queries on this point. A document has been circulated containing the contentions of the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations. I believe that it has been put to Mr Lynch, the Minister for Labour and National Service. It is a very wide power to give an Arbitrator in respect of an organisation which is not involved in Commonwealth employment and we would like to have the advice of the Minister on that question.
– I will attempt to elucidate this matter for Senator Bishop. I have read out twice section 13 of the principal Act and I do not think it is necessary for me to read it out again. It applies to orders under the proposed new section 12d because those orders are made in pursuance of applications under the Act. Thus the Arbitrator must act in accordance with equity, good conscience, and so on, in terms of the general strictures contained in section 13. I have some general observations about the proposed new section 12d. In respect of sub-section (l.)(a), when the Arbitrator has been notified of the existence of or the likely occurrence of an industrial situation he or a Deputy
Arbitrator shall call a conference of the representatives of the Public Service Board, the employing departments and the appropriate Commonwealth authorities affected, as well as the organisations affected. The provision specifically states that this conference shall be called forthwith so that the matter may receive immediate attention.
In respect of sub-section (l.)(b), at any stage of the conference or at its conclusion the Arbitrator or a Deputy Arbitrator may make such orders as he thinks necessary or desirable to put an end to or to prevent the occurrence of an industrial situation or such other orders as he thinks necessary by reason of the existence or likely occurrence of the situation. I think that comment is about as much as we can usefully employ at present. The rest of the comments with which I have been supplied are rather lengthy.
– In explaining the effect of the proposed new sub-section 12D(l.)(a) the Minister said that the conference shall include representatives of the Board or of the employing Minister.
– Employing department.
– Why are the words ‘Minister of any department’ used? Must he be Minister of a department concerned in the dispute or can he be the Minister of any other department?
– I draw the attention of the Minister to subsection (4.) of the proposed new section 12b which provides in respect of compulsory conferences:
A person directed under sub-section (1.) of this section shall attend the conference and continue his attendance at the conference as directed by the Arbitrator or a Deputy, Arbitrator.
Penalty: One thousand dollars. ls it a fact that the fine of $1,000 provided for in respect of failure to attend a compulsory conference cannot be imposed on the Commonwealth or any branch of the Public Service? If that is so it means, of course, that it is a discriminatory penalty which can be imposed on only one party to the dispute.
– I will reply to Senator Cavanagh while the information sought by Senator Brown is turned up. Senator Cavanagh directed his attention to sub-section (l.)(a) of the proposed new section 12d, which reads, in part: . . shall forthwith call a conference of representatives of the Board, of the Minister of any Department of State thai is, or is likely to bc, by the existence of the situation or would, upon the occurrence of the situation, be likely lo be so affected . . .
That is the provision and that is the interpretation that is to be placed upon it.
– 1 again raise a question which has not been answered. The Minister may recall that 1 referred not only to the conflict between the proposed new section 12D(2.)(b) in the Bill and section 13 of the principal Act, but also to the meaning of paragraph (a) of sub-section (2.) of section I 2d. It reads: . . orders relating to conditions of employment of officers or employees, (whether members of an organisation or not) who are concerned in or affected by, or are likely to be concerned in or affected by, the industrial situation;
The complaint of the unions concerns section 3 of the Public Service Arbitration Act, which includes this definition:
Organisation’ means an organisation within the meaning of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1950; lt seems to me that the union correctly claims that the Arbitrator or a Deputy Arbitrator can enforce upon an organisation which is registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act an order in relation to a matter which, after all, concerns only Commonwealth public servants. Organisations not involved in the Commonwealth Public Service could be affected. That is the legal advice given to the unions. Some explanation should be furnished and I would be interested to learn whether the Minister or his advisers have yet considered that principle.
– In reply to Senator Brown I say that, of course, the Commonwealth cannot prosecute itself. The honourable senator would acknowledge that such an action would cause ludicrous situations. I am quite sure he did not intend that there is no such suggestion. However, it has to be borne in mind. A Commonwealth officer who fails to attend a conference as directed is subject to a penally for his failure as an officer. Perhaps that covers Senator Brown’s point.
Senator Bishop referred to paragraph (a) and (b) of the proposed new section 1 2d (2.). Paragraph (a) relates to the general phraseology of ‘stand down’ or any variation of conditions of employment. Paragraph (b) is directed to bans orders. That information may go some way towards answering the honourable senator’s query.
– I am sorry that I have to follow this up at this late hour, but 1 think it is necessary. I will quickly restate the contention of the unions. In this matter the unions are almost as well equipped as the Minister’s advisers because the unions have had legal advice. Proposed section 12d (2.) reads:
The orders that may be made under Dic last preceding sub-section are -
orders relating to conditions of employment of officers or employees (whether members of an organisation or not) who arc concerned in or affected by, or are likely to be concerned in or affected by, the industrial situation; or
orders directing the cessation of conduct that constitutes, or encourages the continuation of, the industrial situation or prohibiting the engaging in conduct that would constitute or bring about the industrial situation.
The unions say that those orders by the Arbitrator can be issued upon the unions because of the definition of organisation in the Public Service Arbitration Act. It reads:
Organisation’ means an organisation within the meaning of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act . . .
We know from answers on this score that it is possible for the Arbitrator, on an application by any Minister, to enforce an order to stand down workers because of a dispute outside the Commonwealth Service. The dispute does not have to be within the Commonwealth Service. That is one thing we learned today. That is one benefit of these Committee deliberations. We have also learned that a Minister may act although he is not the Minister concerned with the management of the section in which the dispute occurs. That is an extraordinary new power. There is a new question which might be answered by the Minister. Can the Arbitrator enforce or try to enforce such orders upon organisations which are not concerned or are only partly concerned with Commonwealth employment?
– Proposed section 12d(2.) sets out the types of orders which might be made. These are described as orders relating to conditions of employment, which would cover matters such as stand-down clauses and noworknopay clauses and alterations to the wages or conditions of employment of those concerned. Such orders would primarily affect officers and employees rather than organisations. The paragraph has been expressed in wide terms to cover all officers and employees involved in the particular situation, irrespective of whether they are members of an organisation. If the paragraph were not included an order to stand down the members of the organisation involved would not be effective against nonmembers of the organisation who are unable to be employed because of the stoppage. Orders directing the cessation of the conduct would generally be directed against the organisation but would also enable the insertion of a bans clause in the determination. Senator Bishop said that orders under proposed section 1 2d (2.) can be issued against a union in respect of a dispute outside the Public Service. The orders can be so directed, but only in respect of matters involving the Public Service. The bans order cannot be made against a union except in respect of conduct by it in the Public Service area.
– To some extent proposed section 12e has been canvassed because it is related to other proposed sections. I refer particularly to proposed section 12e (3.). I think I should re-state very quickly the opinion of the unions and the Opposition, lt has been stated by the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) and in the other place that proposed section 12e, which applies to a compulsory conference, is the same as the provision contained in section 29 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. In our opinion, it is quite different. The
Minister has made some comment on it - or his advisers have told him what their opinion is. He may want to say something else. Proposed section 12e (3.) states:
A direction under sub-section (1.) of this section may be given to any person whose presence at the conference the Arbitrator or Deputy Arbitrator thinks is likely to conduce to putting an end to, or preventing the occurrence of, the industrial situation.
That is what is proposed. Section 29 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act reads:
In determining the persons to whom directions arc given under the last preceding sub-section, the Commissioner shall take into consideration the persons having the highest degree of authority, on behalf of the parties to the industrial dispute, to negotiate for the settlement of the dispute.
That Act recognises the well established principle that registered unions have a status and have to be recognised. Although the departments or the managers might not like the unions, they are forced by law to consult the officers who have the greatest authority. The proposed section uses different terms. The direction under proposed section 12e (3.) ‘may be given to any person whose presence at the conference the Arbitrator or Deputy Arbitrator thinks is likely to conduce to putting an end to, Or preventing the occurrence of, the industrial situation’. In the opinion of the unions, that is a very weak sub-section because it may result in the development of relations which are not consistent with the standard of relations that have obtained until now.
– I am sorry that I am unable to help Senator Bishop a great deal more, but as a last resort the Arbitrator who wishes to bring the matter to finality, as is his proper function, can ask anybody to attend. That gives him a fairly wide and sweeping power to do what he is designed to do and what he should do - that is, to bring the dispute to a happy conclusion as quickly as possible.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 (Reference to Commission).
– Section I 5a (4.) of the Principal Act reads:
An application under the last preceding sub-section may bc made by -
the Board;
a Minister affected by the claim or application; or
the organisation by which the claim or application was submitted to the Arbitrator.
Proposed section 1 5a (4.) reads:
A request under the last preceding sub-section may be made by -
the Board;
a Minister by whom the application was made or who is affeced by the claim, application or matter . . .
We contend that the alteration is a substantial one. The great weakness of the Bill is that it relates too closely to Government policy. Under the present Act, obviously a Minister who is in charge of the department in which the dispute occurs has some status, some identity with the dispute. One would expect that Minister to be active when there are some problems in industry. That section is deleted. The old prescription that the Minister must be ‘a Minister affected by the claim or application’ is to be deleted. In its place there is a provision that the Minister must be ‘a Minister by whom the application was made or who is affected by the claim, application or matter’. So there is a new and wide power which we think is related too much to the Government’s political and economic aims. As I have said, it is certainly positive that when a Minister is involved in administering a department in which a dispute occurs he should have some reference in the matter. But when the Government allows the reference to be made by some other Minister, the power is too wide because the other Minister - it may be even the Prime Minister or the Treasurer - can decide to advise the Public Service Arbitrator that there is some industrial situation. The dispute may concern wage claims or anything relating to Commonwealth employment. He may not be as intimately aware of the dispute as would the Minister who runs the department, but he now is able to advise. He can make the application. It seems to me - this is so in the eyes of the unions also - that in this clause the Government is identifying too closely the role of government with the role of management in respect to industrial relations. I would like to know from the Minister the reason for which the definition was so prescribed and whether it has any relevance to the points that I am making. At any rate, I would certainly like to know his explanation of this position.
– It is proposed to amend section 15a of the principal Act by omitting subsection (4.). The proposed new paragraph (b) will read:
The general note which I have here may help Senator Bishop and the rest’ of us. Clause 5 amends section 15a of the principal Act which deals with references of matters before the Arbitrator to a full bench of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. This is a similar provision to that contained in section 34 of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act which enables parties to seek that a matter be dealt with by a full bench rather than by a single commissioner on the grounds of its importance in the public interest. The amendments which are proposed are for the most part consequential amendments arising from industrial situation provisions dealt with earlier. In effect, they provide that an application for a reference can be made in relation to a matter before the Arbitrator under the new provisions - for example, an industrial situation - in the same way as can a matter before the Arbitrator in respect of a claim or application under the normal provisions. They extend the power to seek a reference to an organisation which is affected by a claim. I have asked the question and the term ‘organisation’ means without any doubt a union. Previously, an organisation could seek a reference only if it was an applicant and not a respondent. This provision was discriminatory against organisations which, I again repeat, I have been informed include unions. The new provision corrects that anomaly.
– I thinkI should raise this question at this time because this is the last clause we will deal with in Committee. I have been asked to raise the question of what the Government proposes to do about superannuation payments, for example. This matter could be related to any one of the clauses.It is pertinent to the Bill generally. I put a hypothetical situation in which there is a stand-down which extends over a fortnightly period. It would mean that officers of the Commonwealth Public Service would not meet their obligations under the Superannuation Act and would not, in fact, be paying their share of contributions to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund which they should be paying. It seems to me that if the Government has not thought about this proposition it ought to do so. If there is a stand-down - it is not unlikely that it may occur - and it runs through the course of a fortnight, those officers in the Commonwealth Public Service who would normally be able to pay their superannuation entitlements for so many units of pension would, in fact, be in arrears.
There are also other matters related to this. Not only superannuation is involved. They are entitled to other benefits under the regulations of the Public Service Act which probably would be encompassed in the same question. I want to know, and certainly the unions want to know, the attitude of the Government or of any department in circumstances in which, because of the action of an arbitrator, employees are suspended so as to make them unable to meet their superannuation commitments. In those circumstances, they may be in default. What consideration has been given to this situation?
– The information that I have is that their situations are protected. But, as in all these circumstances, their payments which would be deferred would have to be made up later, as they would have to be made up in any other circumstances in their lives. Senator Bishop or I could be placed in a similar situation of having to make payments for various assets or entitlements which we were, for a period, unable to meet and of which we wished to remain in possession. I understand the situation to be exactly the same.
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Motion (by Senator Cotton) put:
That the Bill be now read a thirdtime.
The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)
AYES: 24
NOES: 19
Majority . . . . 5
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
page 1319
Ministerial Statement
– Mr President, I table the Third Report of the Interim Council for a National Film and Television Training School, together with associated letters of 20th, 21 st and 28th March from the Chairman of the Interim Council and a letter dated 2nd March from Mr Hector Crawford to the Chairman of the Interim Council. This statement, which is quite a long one, was delivered in the House of Representatives yesterday by the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson). In view of the lateness of the hour I ask for leave of the Senate to incorporate this ministerial statement in Hansard.
– Order! Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The statement by the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts read as follows):
Honourable members will recall that in the context of last year’s Budget the Government decided to defer consideration of recommendations for a National Film and Television Training School. However, the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) made it clear at the time that we would be looking at the matter again well before the next Budget. In accordance with that undertaking, we have recently considered these further recommendations from the Interim Council.
Following assurances about the School’s acceptability to the film and television industry and the prospects for employment of graduates, the Government has agreed to the establishment of the School along lines largely in accordance with the Interim Council’s recommendations. The School will be established by statute and be built on an 8 acre site adjacent to Macquarie University. Pending legislative action, the Interim Council will continue to be responsible for its development. The School will be called the ‘Australian Film and Television School’.
Action will be taken as soon as possible to appoint the School’s first director. The occupant of this position will have great influence on the style and quality of the School. I hope that as well as being creative he will be knowledgeable in the practicalities of marketing and distribution and will reflect the Australian identity of the School.
Appendix C of the report shows the courses in film and television available in tertiary institutions in Australia in 1971. I hope that in planning his syllabus, the director will take into account these courses in order to avoid unnecessary duplication.
We have also agreed to the Council immediately undertaking an interim training scheme which will provide a basic course for young people entering the industry and advanced seminars for practising professionals. In the basic course 12 scholarships will be provided tenable for 12 months, open in general to young men and women from any part of Australia, who have passed the higher school certificate or its equivalent and who show evidence of being likely to profit from the training provided. Provision will be made for the entry in exceptional cases of students who do not meet all these requirements but have other special experience or qualifications fitting them for admission to the scheme.
Training in television will use the facilities of the Australian Broadcasting Commission including the Training School in Sydney, and of commercial television stations throughout Australia. The instructors will be drawn from the staff of the ABC and from such other sources as are appropriate. Training in film production will use the studios, cutting rooms and other facilities of the Commonwealth Film Unit and suitable commercial companies as the need arises. Lecturers will be in the main practising professionals.
For approximately 6 months of the course students will be assigned to the Australian Broadcasting Commission, the Commonwealth Film Unit, commercial film companies or television stations, or to more than one of these in rotation, according to the aptitudes which they show. Special tests will be given in the early part of the course to reveal those students with a potential talent for scriptwriting and special attention will be given to their development. Pending the establishment of the National Film and Television School, the Council will arrange for the 3 best students to receive a further year’s training overseas.
The Council also proposes to hold a series of seminars in both Sydney and Melbourne and, if circumstances warrant, in other capital cities. These would be open to a limited number of people of accepted standing in Australian film or television production to enable them to hear from distinguished practitioners from Australia and overseas. Probably 3 to 4 seminars could be arranged in the first year. The Council has estimated the cost of establishing the School on 8 acres as $2,700,000 and its running costs over the first 5 years as $1,610,000. Honourable members will, of course, appreciate that the actual costs will depend on the circumstances at the time the land is acquired, the building erected and so on. The interim scheme is expected to cost about $150,600 a year.
Appendix E of the report recommends that the School should be established on a site large enough to accommodate in the future other schools of an appropriate nature. However, paragraphs 9.14 to 9.18 of the report show that the schools which might most appropriately be associated with the Film School, namely, the National Institute of Dramatic Art and the Opera and Ballet Schools, are unlikely to want to move from their present locations. For example, the report says the National Institute of Dramatic Art has an ideal association with the Old Tote Theatre and the Department of Drama at the University of New South Wales and has ready access to the training school of the Australian Broadcasting Commission at King’s Cross.
The Government will purchase only 8 acres for the school site. The schools contemplated in Appendix E as associating with the Film School would normally be the responsibility of the Government of New South Wales. We believe that it should be for the New South Wales authorities to decide whether to acquire land adjoining the Film School for the purposes of these other schools.
One member of the Council, Mr Hector Crawford, has expressed doubts about the viability of the School and has advocated deferment until the operation and effectiveness of an interim scheme for professionals can be assessed. While Mr Crawford’s views reflect wide experience in the industry, they do not have the backing of other members of the Interim Council or of representatives of the industry consulted by the Council. However, I am hopeful that the interim scheme will lend itself to development on the postgraduate side so that practising professionals in the industry may continue to benefit from the best experience available both here and overseas. Planning of the school building will be kept as flexible as possible so that its form and detail can be influenced by the experience gained during the operation of the interim scheme.
The. third report records a joint statement by the Interim Council and the Australian Film Development Corporation saying:
It is clear that measures have already been started to provide a solid basis for a viable Australian film and television, industry.
In addition, both the Council and Corporation say that:
By the time the first graduates can be expected to emerge from the School in 5 years’ time or so, there is every reason to suppose that there will be an active industry in which they can use their talents and the skills which they have acquired and that they will do their part in developing that industry.
One of the members of the Interim Council, Mr Mauger, has recorded his disagreement with these statements. Also, representatives of commercial film studios are reported as saying that they consider that establishment of the School:
The Government’s assistance to the film and television industry is already substantial. The Australian Film Development Corporation was established in 1970 with an initial capital of Sim to encourage the production and distribution of Australian films, lt is already supporting films that are of good quality and likely to be commercially successful.
The Experimental Film and Television Fund was also established in 1970 to provide assistance to individual film-makers to develop their talent and expertise and to explore the possibilities of the film and television media. The Interim Council has provided grants-in-aid to enable promising young students to go overseas. It envisages continuation of this scheme. The Interim Council has also provided assistance towards the production costs of television programmes of quality and special interest and assistance has been provided for scriptwriters to enable them to devote a period of time to the development of specific scripts of particular promise. Support is being given to film festivals and to organisations which provide the opportunity for a deeper study of film and television. - Now, most significantly, the Tariff Board has been asked to undertake a wide ranging inquiry into measures to assist the production of Australian films and television programmes and to ensure that they attain a reasonable share of the market. This is evidence of the Government’s intentions to foster and develop an efficient industry and to encourage distribution of the products of that industry within and outside Australia.
This third report of the Interim Council was prepared at my request. The Council endeavoured to obtain the co-operation of the film and television industry in Australia. It is pleasing to note that the fullhearted co-operation of the industry ha3 been achieved. This will not only provide increased employment opportunities in the industry for graduates from the School but also the assistance and services of the commercial companies in the interim scheme. It is my hope that, in founding the Australian Film and Television School, we are setting firm foundations for standards of quality in that industry which will be a source of pleasure and enlightenment in Australia and overseas in the years to come.
Senate adjourned at 4.38 p.m.
page 1322
The following answers to questions upon notice were given:
page 1322
On 7th March 1972 Senator Lawrie asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral the following question:
Has the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral seen a report in the Sunday Press that the Postmaster-General is examining the question of a standard charge for telephone calls throughout Australia or, alternatively, a standard charge for trunk line calls and another standard charge for local calls? Can the Minister inform the Senate when a report on this matter might be available?
page 1322
On 2nd March 1972 Senator Townley asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral the following question: 1 preface my question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, by saying that no doubt the Minister is aware that the Tasmanian telephone directory now is divided into 3 sections whereas previously it was one book. Will the Minister say whether the PostmasterGeneral intends to continue this practice hi the future or revert to the much more convenient style of one book only? If his answer is in the affirmative, will he endeavour to ensure that all sections are delivered within a reasonable time of the closing of entries and not 7 months later as was the case with the north-west directory in the past year?
page 1322
(Question No. 1854) Senator DOUGLAS McCELLAND asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:
page 1322
On 9th November 1971 Senator Laucke asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral the following question:
I ask a question of the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. It concerns the regroupings of divisional offices of the Post Office in rural areas. In view of the important role played by Mt Gambier as the main regional centre of the south-east of South Australia and to promote the policy of decentralisation of industry actively being pursued by that city, will urgent consider- ation be given to retaining the present divisional offices of the Postmaster-General’s Department at that centre.
page 1323
(Question No. 1864) Senator MCAULIFFE asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:
page 1323
asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:
Has the attention of the Attorney-General been drawn to the action by Mr Peter Coleman, a New South Wales M.L.A., calling for the registration, licensing and control of all data banks operated by public authorities, credit bureaux, private detective agencies and organisations who offer such data bank information for sale; if so, (a) is it not important that co-ordinated action should be taken in the States and the Territories of the Commonwealth to ensure the privacy of the individual and protection from abuse, and (b) what steps is the Commonwealth taking to achieve an effective and speedy resolution of this important matter.
Senator GREENWOOD- The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
My attention has been drawn to the statement referred to in the question. As to the two particular matters -
The problems relating to credit bureaux and computerised information were discussed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in Melbourne in July 1971 and will again be considered by the Standing Committee at its next meeting to be held in Adelaide on 20th April 1972.
The regulation of the establishment and use of so-called data banks is primarily a matter within the legislative competence of the States but the Commonwealth is concerned wilh the position in the Commonwealth Territories, and is actively participating in the work of the Standing Committee in this respect.
page 1323
asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
There are 10 professional engineers and 32 technical and administrative support staff, physically located at the Sydney Mail Exchange. This group, however, is responsible for a number of State-wide activities, in addition to the control of the manipulative staff involved with the operation and maintenance of the Sydney Mail Exchange equipment. The group of professional engineers and support staff located at the Sydney Mail Exchange controls the following manipulative staff:
and (3) Because the engineering staff for the whole State, including the G.P.O., is based at the Sydney Mail Exchange, it is not possible to draw a direct comparison between the two locations, particularly as the G.P.O. ls now under re-development. In addition the system design, machine design, and specification work for the G.P.O. re-development has been carried out by the professional group at the Sydney Mail Exchange, and about half of the postal, plant depot staff is committed to that project.
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
The printing of telephone directories is the subject of contracts between the Post Office and several printing firms and it would not be appropriate for me to release details of the costs incurred in producing directories in any one State.
It can be said though that the cost of printing the 1971 issue of the Tasmanian telephone directories was higher than for the 1970 issues due to such factors as:
increased circulation due to normal subscriber growth:
increased labour and material costs; and
the change in the current Tasmanian directories whereby business subscribers in areas other than Hobart were given a free listing in the pink page sections of the directories.
Moreover, included in the costs for the production of the 1971 issue were those incurred because of the need to print sufficient copies of the separate directories for issue to subscribers who feel that they might have a need for other than their local book. Experience has shown that after the first issue of a restructured directory, many subscribers requesting ‘other area’ books quickly find that they have little need for them, accordingly, the number of additional copies which need to be printed to cover this requirement diminishes and significant savings in printing costs are effected.
7*
page 1324
(Question No. 1946) Senator TOWNLEY asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice:
What were the production costs of (a) the Tasmanian telephone directories in 1969 and 1970, and (b) the Tasmanian directories in 1971.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 20 April 1972, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1972/19720420_senate_27_s51/>.